Go out and vote [Archive]

The Jay

27th January 2014, 06:08

If you live in a democratic nation, please just take some time out of your day and vote on issues or candidates whenever possible. For example, if leftists decided that both candidates weren't good enough in the 2012 election and not voted then we would be stuck with a facist called Mitt Romney. I know most candidates are capitalist but just vote for the lesser evil. Hopefully that can help slow the bourgeoisie's dictatorship until the revolution.

No, but I understand why you would think so. The differences between the candidates are small and would not alter things much, if at all.

Secondly, Romney was not a fascist unless you know something I do not know. He is a first rate bourgeois asshole, but not a fascist. Please don't fudge terms since it makes it look like you are prone to hyperbole and misinformation.

Thirdly, how did Obama being elected slow down bourgeois dictatorship at all? I'm thinking that you don't know what is meant by bourgeois dictatorship. Capitalist dictatorship involves not only an outright dictatorship as is meant in common parlance but refers to objective political control as well as social control. This consists of propaganda: taking the forms of 'spin' on the news, think tanks, bribes of officials, and a disproportionate control over the law which maintains their hegemony. It also consists of the very system itself which perpetuates their status.

The very political system requires its own perpetuation and even if there were to be reforms or a lessened advancement of shitdom for the working class the system itself would be maintained. Any of those reforms that could be passed would be in the service of maintaining said system, Capitalism, and the dictatorship that serves it.

Some think that actions towards reform will foment class consciousness and lead to a socialist revolution that either uses the state apparatus or overthrows it directly. In fact, in my opinion it is even possible that class consciousness could be achieved in some by these actions provided that the tools of the bourgeoisie - as mentioned above - are counter-acted. Yes, that could work for some, but for most? I doubt it.

I'm all for helping people in their day-to-day lives and don't harbor ill will towards those that want to get free healthcare and the like for the population; however, I do not think that such will cause a revolution, build mass class-consciousness, nor be able to achieve said reforms on the terms of any of the revolutionaries that support them.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 06:08

Did you read the post? I said vote for the lesser evil, i didn't say that the lesser evil was gonna be a good candidate. In the 2012 election it was either a facist or a capitalist, take your choice.

Marshal of the People

27th January 2014, 06:09

I actually agree with the original poster. It is better to vote for the lesser of two evils. Lets just say there were two candidates, a liberal one and a fascist one, now I hate liberals but I hate fascists even more so obviously to stop the fascist from gaining power I would vote for the liberal. Note the liberals policies would be bad but not nearly as bad as the fascists.

ToxicAcidRed

27th January 2014, 06:13

Future

27th January 2014, 06:48

My voting would only give legitimacy to capitalism, representative democracy, and the state - which means that my actions would directly contribute to the promotion of hierarchical authority and bourgeois policies. I don't want to put my life's future in the hands of someone else who will not have the best interest of the working class in mind and will exercise unjust authority over my life and the lives of others. That completely contradicts everything I believe in. It's bad enough to support hierarchical representation, and even worse to support reactionary hierarchial representation. I would feel like a reformist if I voted, and while I can understand why people would want better capitalism until we can change the world, I just can't settle for that. I don't want better capitalism - I want socialism - and I want it now. I want freedom as soon as I can get it. I want to shed my chains fully, not settle with handcuffs. If the world ends up forming communism through some kind of gradual reformism, that's sad, but so be it. But until I get my stateless communism, I'm going to advocate capitalism's revolutionary annhilation as soon as possible.

I can sympathize with people who feel the need to vote for the lesser of two evils, but doing so really doesn't change a thing long term. The most liberal of Democrats is still a supporter of capitalism and immoral authority. The most humane of liberals is still a supporter of limiting my freedom as an individual, and our freedom as a people.

I'm tired of flying the white flag in truce. It's time the red and black flag flies high for all to see.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 06:55

yo you should read a thing before posting again, pelase.

*this is a drunk post

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 06:56

damn dude, that's powerful. I wish i had that kind of charisma.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 06:57

i will take that into account before i post next time.

Marshal of the People

27th January 2014, 06:58

In Australia voting is compulsory, that is probably why I find the idea of not voting so foreign.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:00

My voting would only give legitimacy to capitalism, representative democracy, and the state - which means that my actions would directly contribute to the promotion of hierarchical authority and bourgeois policies.

No one actually takes that much notice of your voting though, because you're usually one of thousands or millions, and it's a secret ballot.

I don't want to put my life's future in the hands of someone else who will not have the best interest of the working class in mind and will exercise unjust authority over my life and the lives of others.

You are already in that situation, unfortunately.

That completely contradicts everything I believe in. It's bad enough to support hierarchical representation, and even worse to support reactionary hierarchial representation. I would feel like a reformist if I voted, and while I can understand why people would want better capitalism until we can change the world, I just can't settle for that.

I don't want better capitalism - I want socialism - and I want it now. I want freedom as soon as I can get it. I want to shed my chains fully, not settle with handcuffs. If the world ends up forming communism through some kind of gradual reformism, that's sad, but so be it. But until I get my stateless communism, I'm going to advocate capitalism's revolutionary annhilation as soon as possible.

How does not voting help to do that?

I can sympathize with people who feel the need to vote for the lesser of two evils, but doing so really doesn't change a thing long term. The most liberal of Democrats is still a supporter of capitalism and immoral authority. The most humane of liberals is still a supporter of limiting my freedom as an individual, and our freedom as a people.

Some are less of a scourge upon oppressed peoples than others.

I'm tired of flying the white flag in truce. It's time the red and black flag flies high for all to see.

This is a false dichotomy, because you can quietly vote for rulers who are less likely to hurt people than others, and contribute to the movement for liberating the proletariat.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 07:01

It pisses me off that only 2/5 of the population of the United States vote.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:06

i will take that into account before i post next time.

damn dude, that's powerful. I wish i had that kind of charisma.

I actually like you bud but I get the feeling that you (much like myself when i was a baby communist) are tryna be big ol' know it all communist before actually knowing a damn thing.

seriously go on like, marxists.org or something and check out Marx's selected works -- particularly "Critique of the Gotha Programme" and learn a little more about Marxist political strategy.

Shit, while you're at it, check out the Anarchist FAQ and take a look at anarchist political strategy.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:11

It pisses me off that only 2/5 of the population of the United States vote.

I am pissed off at the power structures that allows this degree of casual voter suppression in the United States. I would like it if voting was compulsory like it is in Australia (as Marshal of the People alluded to). Coercion is generally negative, but one could simply not vote for any of the candidates, and it would ensure that all of the people can participate. Prisoners should also be allowed to vote too, so the (in)justice system can stopped being used primarily as a way to disenfranchise people of color in the working class.

You know that quote "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"? Well, they did try to make it illegal for various groups of people and they're still fighting their enfranchisement. So if we're following the logic of that quote, perhaps voting does change something.

Remus Bleys

27th January 2014, 07:11

It pisses me off that only 2/5 of the population of the United States vote.
It shouldnt. Voting should worry you. The proletariat is realizing the uselessness of the bourgeois state to their interests. Now, this does not mean it is revolutionary. We need voter antipathy not apathy, but this is a step.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:11

yo i don't actually believe red rose is a member of the iww lol

Marshal of the People

27th January 2014, 07:15

yo i don't actually believe red rose is a member of the iww lol
What did Rose do wrong?

I actually like you bud but I get the feeling that you (much like myself when i was a baby communist) are tryna be big ol' know it all communist before actually knowing a damn thing.

seriously go on like, marxists.org or something and check out Marx's selected works -- particularly "Critique of the Gotha Programme" and learn a little more about Marxist political strategy.

Shit, while you're at it, check out the Anarchist FAQ and take a look at anarchist political strategy.

I get the feeling that is another insult.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 07:17

I actually like you bud but I get the feeling that you (much like myself when i was a baby communist) are tryna be big ol' know it all communist before actually knowing a damn thing.

seriously go on like, marxists.org or something and check out Marx's selected works -- particularly "Critique of the Gotha Programme" and learn a little more about Marxist political strategy.

Shit, while you're at it, check out the Anarchist FAQ and take a look at anarchist political strategy.
Thanks for the pointing but i am not an anarchist but thanks anyway. If you read my first post you would see i am a new communist and just learning.

P.S. is this reply thing working? I get the feeling it isn't.

Future

27th January 2014, 07:17

No one actually takes that much notice of your voting though, because you're usually one of thousands or millions, and it's a secret ballot.

I realize how little my vote means in the grand scheme, but it means a lot to me as a person concerned about our plight. I just can't do it and stay consistent with my beliefs. And like you said, my puny vote isn't going to do a damn thing. It's too small to have any real effect. Liberals and conservatives are going to win and lose without my one vote in Red State Kentucky. And let me make this clear, I want them both to lose. I'm not going to vote for someone I want to lose.

You are already in that situation, unfortunately.

Of course, but me voting woud be like a slave doing his very small part to keep slavery alive in perhaps some reformed and less brutal form. Slavery is slavery - its inherently brutal no matter what form its in.

How does not voting help to do that?

I can spend my energy trying to educate the working class (which I try my best to do in my community, especially during election season), and my refusal to vote can set an example for others.

Some are less of a scourge upon oppressed peoples than others.

But long term it doesn't matter. It's still the continuation of a gravely immoral system. The progress that can happen in reformism is not enough, and is often overturned, only to come back later, and so on. It promotes the idea that we can gradually reform things until it all gets better. I just don't believe that is possible.

This is a false dichotomy, because you can quietly vote for rulers who are less likely to hurt people than others, and contribute to the movement for liberating the proletariat.

I can, but for one, my vote is almost compltely meaningless, and most importantly, my vote goes against my principles. I understand your point of view and I sympathize with it, but I think I've made it clear why I just cannot bring myself to do it. It's futile and ultimately wrong for me to support this evil system in any way whatsoever.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:17

yo i don't actually believe red rose is a member of the iww lol

Or maybe I can support direct action as the best revolutionary tactic, and hold that reform and electoral politics won't bring about an end to class society, while still valuing the ability to chose the opponents being faced in the ring, when I can.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:19

What did Rose do wrong?

Being an "anarchist" who is dumb enough to suggest voting for the democrats.

I get the feeling that is another insult.

Naw communistmanifestor said he is hella new to radical politics.

I think you need to chill and learn to seperate disagreement and criticism from insult because you take every single thing personally.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:20

Thanks for the pointing but i am not an anarchist but thanks anyway. If you read my first post you would see i am a new communist and just learning.

Every anarchist is also a communist.

I dunno, maybe I'm assuming a lot but I got the idea that you are extremely green when it comes to radical politics. I seriously suggest you go and engage with the basics first.

Marshal of the People

27th January 2014, 07:22

Being an "anarchist" who is dumb enough to suggest voting for the democrats.

You just called Red Rose dumb, you do know that is a personal attack?

Naw communistmanifestor said he is hella new to radical politics.

I think you need to chill and learn to seperate disagreement and criticism from insult because you take every single thing personally.

What a strange comment because you just called Red Rose "dumb" in your previous comment, I am pretty sure that would be classified as an insult, but that is just my opinion.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:23

Or maybe I can support direct action as the best revolutionary tactic, and hold that reform and electoral politics won't bring about an end to class society, while still valuing the ability to chose the opponents being faced in the ring, when I can.

Or maybe you should spend a day or two in the real world and observe that the democrats soak up disillusioned left-liberals come election time -- people that could be won over if folks were about building a left-wing alternative to the democrats.

Marshal of the People

27th January 2014, 07:25

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:25

You just called Red Rose dumb, you do know that is a personal attack?

What a strange comment because you just called Red Rose "dumb" in your previous comment, I am pretty sure that would be classified as an insult, but that is just my opinion.

My posts to red rose were aggressive but i don't think they could be labeled personal attacks. posts to communist manifestor were not. in the future I will mark my personal attacks as such.

*personal attack* you are a dumb baby

EDIT: SON I AM ALL ABOUT THAT LEFT-WING ALTERNATIVE

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:28

I realize how little my vote means in the grand scheme, but it means a lot to me as a person concerned about our plight. I just can't do it and stay consistent with my beliefs. And like you said, my puny vote isn't going to do a damn thing. It's too small to have any real effect. Liberals and conservatives are going to win and lose without my one vote in Red State Kentucky. And let me make this clear, I want them both to lose. I'm not going to vote for someone I want to lose.

I think is a self-fulfilling prophecy, honestly.

Of course, but me voting woud be like a slave doing his very small part to keep slavery alive in perhaps some reformed and less brutal form. Slavery is slavery - its inherently brutal no matter what form its in.

[...]

But long term it doesn't matter. It's still the continuation of a gravely immoral system. The progress that can happen in reformism is not enough, and is often overturned, only to come back later, and so on. It promotes the idea that we can gradually reform things until it all gets better. I just don't believe that is possible.

Are you directly affected by things that reactionary politicians do and attack in less of an abstract sense? I'm not saying this as if you aren't, but if you are, I'd like you to recognize those things when you say that.

I'm a trans girl, and what these bourgeois politicians do is rather important to me right here, right now. They aren't abolishing capitalism, but I would like the politicians who want to make it legal to discriminate against me in a workplace to not be in power if possible.

I can spend my energy trying to educate the working class (which I try my best to do in my community, especially during election season), and my refusal to vote can set an example for others.

Why would anyone want less leftists voting against reactionaries?

I can, but for one, my vote is almost compltely meaningless, and most importantly, my vote goes against my principles. I understand your point of view and I sympathize with it, but I think I've made it clear why I just cannot bring myself to do it. It's futile and ultimately wrong for me to support this evil system in any way whatsoever.

Do you also abstain from buying things made from sweatshops and from companies with records of killing unionists in the developing world? Do you purchase products from Nestle, or Chiquita or Nike? Do you support capitalist systems by giving them your labor or money? Do you pay taxes, which directly contributes to things like black sites and Guantanamo if you're in the U.S.?

If your answers to any of these questions is 'yes', considering your principles 'betrayed' in your lifestyle. This is to be expected, because capitalism is omnipresent, as is the state. There are multiple methods to fight it, and life-stylism is not one of them.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 07:32

Every anarchist is also a communist.

I dunno, maybe I'm assuming a lot but I got the idea that you are extremely green when it comes to radical politics. I seriously suggest you go and engage with the basics first.
I thought that every anarchist is a communist but not every communist is a anarchist? Can't i be a communist but not an anarchist?

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:32

Being an "anarchist" who is dumb enough to suggest voting for the democrats.

I don't really appreciate being called dumb. For four reasons:

1. It shuts down debate because you're finding issue with me as a person, and not the logic of my arguments.
2. It's an ad hominem argument, which is fallacious.
3. Also a tu quoque fallacy.
4. And it's kind of mean? :(

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:34

I thought that every anarchist is a communist but not every communist is a anarchist? Can't i be a communist but not an anarchist?

Yup. I mean, ultimately, all communists are about smashing the state and a stateless, classless society. The difference is really in strategy, tactics and theory beyond the criticism of capitalism that a lot of anarchists adopt anyway.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:35

Or maybe you should spend a day or two in the real world and observe that the democrats soak up disillusioned left-liberals come election time -- people that could be won over if folks were about building a left-wing alternative to the democrats.

You won't ever be able to create a popular and well-supported anticapitalist electoral party because the primary parties, of varying degrees of shittiness to marginalized peoples, rely on wealthy people and lobbies to spread their advertisements and to decide the policies they support. The only way to liberate the proletariat is a general strike, mass protests, and any other kind of direct action against our oppressors.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:36

You won't ever be able to create an anticapitalist electoral party because the primary parties, of varying degrees of shittiness to marginalized peoples, rely on wealthy people and lobbies to spread their advertisements and to decide the policies they support. The only way to liberate the proletariat is a general strike, mass protests, and any other kind of direct action against our oppressors.

Is this a uniquely American problem? Because European electoral politics don't have this same issue -- "third" parties are able to get some representation in parliament.

argeiphontes

27th January 2014, 07:37

Could you guys please vote in an Ohio government that'll legalize marijuana. Thanks.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:38

Is this a uniquely American problem? Because European electoral politics don't have this same issue -- "third" parties are able to get some representation in parliament.

I appended the word popular in an edit to qualify that, but it's a problem in European electoral politics as well. Point me to more than one nation (or even one nation) where a decidedly anti-capitalist party is well supported in the national legislature. (Social democrats don't count, obviously.)

Could you guys please vote in an Ohio government that'll legalize marijuana. Thanks.

If that were put to a national referendum, it would get legalized so fast some people's heads would spin.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 07:44

Remus Bleys

27th January 2014, 07:45

I appended the word popular in an edit to qualify that, but it's a problem in European electoral politics as well. Point me to more than one nation (or even one nation) where a decidedly anti-capitalist party is well supported in the national legislature. (Social democrats don't count, obviously.
An anti-capitalist party wouldn't be in the majority national legislature to begin with (at least for now. i disagree with this view but whatever let me keep this broad). And even if they were, that does not mean that something will somehow changed. You are an anarchist, you should realize that the bourgeois state only exists to support bourgeois interests - doesnt matter if a "communist" "party" is in charge or not.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:45

I appended the word popular in an edit to qualify that, but it's a problem in European electoral politics as well. Point me to more than one nation (or even one nation) where a decidedly anti-capitalist party is well supported in the national legislature. (Social democrats don't count, obviously.)

That's a neat-o qualifier you added there: "Well-supported", because "anti-capitalist" parties have tiny baby amounts of seats in hella parliaments around the world (even though most of those parties have beyond shitty politics). I mean, holy shit, even parties that are primarily concerned with defending internet piracy get a seat or two. Your position is profoundly dumb your position is "vote for centrists to maybe get a reform at some expense but abandon electoral politics beyond that."

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:49

That's a neat-o qualifier you added there: "Well-supported", because "anti-capitalist" parties have tiny baby amounts of seats in hella parliaments around the world (even though most of those parties have beyond shitty politics). I mean, holy shit, even parties that are primarily concerned with defending internet piracy get a seat or two.

So basically, nothing substantive, because capitalism controls the oligarchical states whether it be the United States or in Europe.

Your position is profoundly dumb your position is "vote for centrists to maybe get a reform at some expense but abandon electoral politics beyond that."

No my position is: "vote for people who won't stomp on marginalized peoples in our society, or at least won't be so combative towards them, so we can better build the revolutionary movement to liberate the proletariat, and directly dethrone the bourgeois who languish upon their gilded thrones".

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 07:49

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:51

An anti-capitalist party wouldn't be in the majority national legislature to begin with (at least for now. i disagree with this view but whatever let me keep this broad). And even if they were, that does not mean that something will somehow changed. You are an anarchist, you should realize that the bourgeois state only exists to support bourgeois interests - doesnt matter if a "communist" "party" is in charge or not.

That was exactly what I was trying to prove, actually:

You won't ever be able to create a popular and well-supported anticapitalist electoral party because the primary parties, of varying degrees of shittiness to marginalized peoples, rely on wealthy people and lobbies to spread their advertisements and to decide the policies they support. The only way to liberate the proletariat is a general strike, mass protests, and any other kind of direct action against our oppressors.

That is, it doesn't matter if centrist liberal parties are 'soaking up' people from a possible leftist alternative because the latter can never succeed anyway.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:53

Here in the United States nobody has had seats other than Independants, Democrats, and Republicans since the early 1900s.

Yep. Well aware of this. "Independants" don't even get elected unless they're running under another party's thing e.g. Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat even though he ain't.

No my position is: "vote for people who won't stomp on marginalized peoples in our society, or at least won't be so combative towards them, so we can better build the revolutionary movement to liberate the proletariat and dethrone the bourgeois who languish upon their gilded thrones through direct action".

Except, in the US, you're voting for people who are every single bit as combative towards us as the Republicans -- but who have the image of being a "left wing" party and so don't inspire the same ire as the Republicans.

I mean, holy shit this isn't even coming from some ultra-left defeatist angle. I know hella left-liberal working class folks who would laugh in your face for telling them that the democrats are less combatitve towards working class people. Come up to Scranton and ask folks what they think of Obama and Doherty. Ask your comrades in Lehigh Valley. Ask 'em in Phillly.

Future

27th January 2014, 07:55

I think is a self-fulfilling prophecy, honestly.

Well, I don't think so. I think it's just the facts. Reformism is dangerous and counter-productive to our cause. Don't get me wrong, I can support reforms if they make life better in some sense, but I can't support reformism itself. I don't want reform, I want revolution. If a Democrat makes life slightly better in some minor way, that's not a bad thing. But I'm not going to champion working with the less sociopathic reactionaries in their attempt to make a better capitalism. I don't want a better capitalism. I want communism as soon as possible and I need to set an example.

Are you directly affected by things that reactionary politicians do and attack in less of an abstract sense? I'm not saying this as if you aren't, but if you are, I'd like you to recognize those things when you say that.

Of course I am. I'm well aware of reactionary policies and how they influence my life. That's why I want to destroy them totally.

I'm a trans girl, and what these bourgeois politicians do is rather important to me right here, right now. They aren't abolishing capitalism, but I would like the politicians who want to make it legal to discriminate against me in a workplace to not be in power if possible.

Understandable. But you will be discrimated against in the workplace no matter what. You will be treated as a wage slave deprived of her right to the fruits of her labor no matter what. I hope your working conditions are as humane as possible, and if a Democrat alleviates some of your suffering, that is only a good thing. But I'm still not going to support a more humane slave master by voting for him/her when what I want is the destruction of the slave master in its entirety.

Why would anyone want less leftists voting against reactionaries?

I don't want any leftists voting against reactionaries. I want leftists to work together to overthrow reactionaries. We can have our freedom tomorrow if we come together. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but I want to speed up the revolution as much as possible, not slow it down by making capitalism more humane and giving the working class the idea that the system that enslaves them should be reformed in the meantime, not overthrown.

Do you also abstain from buying things made from sweatshops and from companies with records of killing unionists in the developing world?

As far as possible, yes.

Do you purchase products from Nestle, or Chiquita or Nike?

No to those 3. I also refuse to shop at Walmart.

Do you support capitalist systems by giving them your labor or money? Do you pay taxes, which directly contributes to things like black sites and Guantanamo if you're in the U.S.?

Yes, living in a capitalist country, I have to rely on capitalist controlled goods and services, and I have to pay taxes which go toward supporting things I am strongly against. But I can't help it. I'm not going to deprive myself of luxuries that I deserve or be thrown in jail. Giving corporations and the state money to do their deeds drives me crazy. But I can't not live a life. I don't really have a choice unless I want to live like a monk or become homeless. I have to sell my labor lest I starve to death or have to live under a bridge. I'm forced into paying these taxes and I'm forced into buying these goods. I have no choice; it's a slave contract. I do have a choice about voting however.

If your answers to any of these questions is 'yes', considering your principles 'betrayed' in your lifestyle. This is to be expected, because capitalism is omnipresent, as is the state. There are multiple methods to fight it, and life-stylism is not one of them.

Capitalism is omnipresent and I have to deal with that until the revolution. But as a person trying to make a living and support himself and his loved ones, I'm sure as hell not going to support the continuation of the state and of capitalism by voting when I don't have to. I want nothing to do with this system. So I'll do as little as I can to give it legitimacy.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 07:56

Except, in the US, you're voting for people who are every single bit as combative towards us as the Republicans -- but who have the image of being a "left wing" party and so don't inspire the same ire as the Republicans.

I mean, holy shit this isn't even coming from some ultra-left defeatist angle. I know hella left-liberal working class folks who would laugh in your face for telling them that the democrats are less combatitve towards working class people. Come up to Scranton and ask folks what they think of Obama and Doherty. Ask your comrades in Lehigh Valley. Ask 'em in Phillly.

I'm not only talking about the working class, but the overlapping subjugated groups that people find themselves in, e.g. people of color, queer people, women, people with disabilities, etc.

Remus Bleys

27th January 2014, 07:58

No my position is: "vote for people who won't stomp on marginalized peoples in our society, or at least won't be so combative towards them, so we can better build the revolutionary movement to liberate the proletariat, and directly dethrone the bourgeois who languish upon their gilded thrones".
With Obama in charge we have had rise in "anti-terrorist" measures, more black people thrown in jail, and some other statistics

also i guess arabs and muslims aren't marginalized peoples? or do they not count because they aren't a part of the electorate?
lol capitalism won't stop on minorities though. Okay. That is possible in modern day politics.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 07:58

I'm not only talking about the working class, but the overlapping subjugated groups that people find themselves in, e.g. people of color, queer people, women, people with disabilities, etc.

That's hella cute because I'm talking about the same people too who are in extremely precarious positions and still don't subscribe to the illusions that you do.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 08:07

I sense growing dissent on this topic so like the bourgeoisie i am going to distract you so you don't pay attention to the stupid stuff i have said. �� Any bets on the superbowl?

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 08:08

Well, I don't think so. I think it's just the facts. Reformism is dangerous and counter-productive to our cause. Don't get me wrong, I can support reforms if they make life better in some sense, but I can't support reformism itself. I don't want reform, I want revolution. If a Democrat makes life slightly better in some minor way, that's not a bad thing. But I'm not going to champion working with the less sociopathic reactionaries in their attempt to make a better capitalism. I don't want a better capitalism. I want communism as soon as possible and I need to set an example.

But you don't have to work with anyone, and I'm not advocating this as a primary means of abolishing capitalism. Just checking off a square on a ballot for people who aren't as bad as other people.

Of course I am. I'm well aware of reactionary policies and how they influence my life. That's why I want to destroy them totally.

And I as well.

Understandable. But you will be discrimated against in the workplace no matter what. You will be treated as a wage slave deprived of her right to the fruits of her labor no matter what. I hope your working conditions are as humane as possible, and if a Democrat alleviates some of your suffering, that is only a good thing. But I'm still not going to support a more humane slave master by voting for him/her when what I want is the destruction of the slave master in its entirety.

I also support removing the bourgeois from their place of power, but I'd rather not have it be legal for my employers to fire me because I am trans. Or have my gender in all my legal documents counter to my own so they can be privy to that information. And so on.

I don't want any leftists voting against reactionaries. I want leftists to work together to overthrow reactionaries.

We can do both.

We can have our freedom tomorrow if we come together. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but I want to speed up the revolution as much as possible, not slow it down by making capitalism more humane and giving the working class the idea that the system that enslaves them should be reformed in the meantime, not overthrown.

I think allowing capitalism to be more inhumane in the name of speeding up the revolution is a tactic that can get a lot of people hurt, and possibly make it harder to organize against them because we're struggling as an even more divided, stratified mess.

Yes, living in a capitalist country, I have to rely on capitalist controlled goods and services, and I have to pay taxes which go toward supporting things I am strongly against. But I can't help it. I'm not going to deprive myself of luxuries that I deserve or be thrown in jail. Giving corporations and the state money to do their deeds drives me crazy. But I can't not live a life. I don't really have a choice unless I want to live like a monk or become homeless. I have to sell my labor lest I starve to death or have to live under a bridge. I'm forced into playing these taxes and I'm forced into buying these goods. I have no choice; it's a slave contract. I do have a choice about voting however.

Actually, not going to prison for tax evasion and not being homeless are choices (in this particular context) made for your own provisional well-being despite not cohering to your ideology, and those that I chose as well and understand. What I'm saying is maybe working against the forces that seek to stratify others and their well-being, for the small sacrifice of your peace of mind in checking a ballot, is a choice worth making.

Capitalism is omnipresent and I have to deal with that until the revolution. But as a person trying to make a living and support himself and his loved ones, I'm sure as hell not going to support the continuation of the state and of capitalism by voting when I don't have to. I want nothing to do with this system. So I'll do as little as I can to give it legitimacy.

Your voting isn't a powerful symbolic act though; it matters for determining elected officials.

#FF0000

27th January 2014, 08:08

i sense growing dissent on this topic so like the bourgeoisie i am going to distract you so you don't pay attention to the stupid stuff i have said. �� any bets on the superbowl?

sea.

Hawks.

TheCommunistManifestor

27th January 2014, 08:11

"i must distract them!"

"Hey look over there." *points and runs away*

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 08:11

That's hella cute

That's more than a little belittling.

because I'm talking about the same people too who are in extremely precarious positions and still don't subscribe to the illusions that you do.

What "illusions"? The "illusion" that there are overlapping matrices of oppression and subjugation, and that not all of the bourgeois are as equally bad for them?

With Obama in charge we have had rise in "anti-terrorist" measures, more black people thrown in jail, and some other statistics

also i guess arabs and muslims aren't marginalized peoples? or do they not count because they aren't a part of the electorate?
lol capitalism won't stop on minorities though. Okay. That is possible in modern day politics.

Or won't be as combative towards them, I said. Furthermore, there is definite differences between a liberal and conservative controlled legislature, even if it's not as evident when the executive and most of the day-to-day judiciary will be imperialist reactionaries no matter what.

Remus Bleys

27th January 2014, 08:20

Or won't be as combative towards them, I said.
Wrong

Furthermore, there is definite differences between a liberal and conservative controlled legislature,
WHERE?

even if it's not as evident when the executive and most of the day-to-day judiciary will be imperialist reactionaries no matter what.
Pray tell, where? Where is this? What world do you live in where the democrats are nicer than republicans?

Future

27th January 2014, 08:37

I think allowing capitalism to be more inhumane in the name of speeding up the revolution is a tactic that can get a lot of people hurt, and possibly make it harder to organize against them because we're struggling as an even more divided, stratified mess.

I will respond to the rest of your stuff later Red Rose, but it's late and I need to go to bed. I just wanted to touch briefly on this one section.

I didn't mean to imply that I support allowing capitalism to be as inhumane as possible so that the working class will suffer more and fight against it with more passion. That would be quite cruel and against Anarchist social responsibility. What I mean is that I don't want to get the working class all happy to reform capitalism so that they are satisfied with the status quo. "Oh, this isn't as bad as it used to be, let's try to reform it into communism gradually." Or even more scary "Oh, this isn't as bad as it used to be, let's try to make a nicer capitalism." That's what I'm against. By all means alleviate our suffereing as much as possible within this dictatorship, but let's not lose sight of what's really necessary to achieve our freedom. To make it clear, I'm not against postive reforms, I'm just against achieving them by enforcing the capitalist state system's methods. I believe that voting just helps to reinforce that system and so achieving reforms in that manner is inappropriate and prone to pull the working class away from the revolution. I'm an impatient communist who is convinced that it is easy to fall into the reformist trap.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

27th January 2014, 09:14

What "illusions"? The "illusion" that there are overlapping matrices of oppression and subjugation, and that not all of the bourgeois are as equally bad for them?

Pretty much.

I mean, "overlapping matrices"? That is the sort of rhetoric one expects from people who think the class structure of society has nothing to do with, for example, transphobia. That transphobia and other kinds of special oppression are timeless and ahistorical, remnants of feudal eras, or a temporary and accidental deviation from capitalist norms instead of, you know, the core of bourgeois ideology, necessary in order to divide the working class and ensure the reproduction of the proletariat as the proletariat. All this sort of "theory" does is that it gives an excuse to workerist "socialists" to ignore trans* and other oppressed people, and fosters popular fronts led by bourgeois liberals.

And any bourgeois politician is equally bad for trans* and other oppressed people, not because they are consciously transphobic, but because capitalism is transphobic. Can't people learn from history at least? Fighting for reforms is alright, and necessary, but the bourgeoisie won't give you reforms, not even the "progressive" bourgeoisie. Black people, for example, didn't win the very limited reforms targeting racism by patiently waiting for the Democrats to enact laws at their own pace, but by being militant and scaring the bourgeoisie into granting reforms.

As for voting, well, let's just say that a lot of "leftist" parties in the US had the same line as the OP when it comes to Obama. So what good did it do the workers and the oppressed people in the US (and worldwide, for that matter)? All it did was channel massive public discontent with the war and reactionary policies into electoral channels, leading to the election of a president who might as well be Bush.

Mather

27th January 2014, 09:37

If you live in a democratic nation, please just take some time out of your day and vote on issues or candidates whenever possible.

Bourgeois democracy is a farce that is permanently rigged in favor of the class it serves. Do you really labour under the delusion that the ruling class would give up their power and status peacefully? If you do then you should at least explain why you subscribe to such a delusion?

For example, if leftists decided that both candidates weren't good enough in the 2012 election and not voted then we would be stuck with a facist called Mitt Romney.

If you think Mitt Romney is a fascist then you have no idea what fascism actually is.

This statement is even more absurd when you consider the fact that the Democrats and Republicans are so alike in ideology and policy that you would be hard pressed to put a cigarette paper between them.

I know most candidates are capitalist but just vote for the lesser evil.

Since when has the lesser evil tactic ever worked? I challenge you to give one historical example of this tactic ever advancing the interests of working class and the class struggle.

Hopefully that can help slow the bourgeoisie's dictatorship until the revolution.

All capitalist societies are ruled by the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy is but one variant of it.

Your advocacy of the lesser evil tactic will not get us anywhere nearer to a revolutionary situation as such a tactic disarms and demoralises the working class into thinking that they cannot wage their own struggles and that the best we can ever hope for is to tail this or that faction of the ruling class. Such a tactic ties the working class to a state of perpetual servitude. As communists, our task is to fight for the working class to organise itself as a class and one that stands for it's own class interests, independent of and in opposition to that of the ruling class.

Did you read the entire post? I am saying vote for the lesser evil, i'm not saying the lesser evil will be a good candidate.

Then what is the point in voting at all, you have just defeated your own argument by pointing out that the lesser evil tactic achieves nothing!

In the 2012 election it was either a facist or a capitalist, take your choice.

Fascism is a form capitalism, you cannot have fascism without capitalism. You make it out like fascism and capitalism are somehow diametrically opposed to one another rather than the fact that fascism is but one political form of capitalism. Once again you have demonstrated your complete ignorance of what fascism actually is.

And Romney is not a fascist, he is a right-wing bourgeois democrat.

It pisses me off that only 2/5 of the population of the United States vote.

That's just great, get pissed off at those working class people who can see through the bullshit that is bourgeois democracy rather than the politicians who have done such a good job of putting people off voting with their lies, corruption and broken promises.

From your posts it is clear that you are not a communist but a liberal.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 14:25

Pretty much.

I mean, "overlapping matrices"? That is the sort of rhetoric one expects from people who think the class structure of society has nothing to do with, for example, transphobia. That transphobia and other kinds of special oppression are timeless and ahistorical, remnants of feudal eras, or a temporary and accidental deviation from capitalist norms instead of, you know, the core of bourgeois ideology, necessary in order to divide the working class and ensure the reproduction of the proletariat as the proletariat. All this sort of "theory" does is that it gives an excuse to workerist "socialists" to ignore trans* and other oppressed people, and fosters popular fronts led by bourgeois liberals.

I'm not sure how you (incorrectly) extrapolated all of that, but okay. All I mean by it is that some workers are more oppressed than others, and consequently we should recognize that some politicians oppress people more than others.

And any bourgeois politician is equally bad for trans* and other oppressed people, not because they are consciously transphobic, but because capitalism is transphobic. Can't people learn from history at least? Fighting for reforms is alright, and necessary, but the bourgeoisie won't give you reforms, not even the "progressive" bourgeoisie. Black people, for example, didn't win the very limited reforms targeting racism by patiently waiting for the Democrats to enact laws at their own pace, but by being militant and scaring the bourgeoisie into granting reforms.

If all bourgeois politicians are equally bad for trans people, why do trans people have differing levels of privileges depending on what state or nation one is in? Wouldn't they be uniform if most liberals weren't motivated by identity politics?

As for voting, well, let's just say that a lot of "leftist" parties in the US had the same line as the OP when it comes to Obama. So what good did it do the workers and the oppressed people in the US (and worldwide, for that matter)? All it did was channel massive public discontent with the war and reactionary policies into electoral channels, leading to the election of a president who might as well be Bush.

I'll repeat: the President of the United States will always be an imperialist incapable of doing anything other than directing the military because that is their role in the bourgeois system. The legislature is a different story.

WHERE?

So you truly don't understand, say, the difference between the United Kingdom under the Conservative Party and Thatcher and the United Kingdom under the Labour Party and James Callaghan? Between the Supplementary Benefits Act, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and the Race Relations Act, versus the 3.5 million drop in labour union members, the weakening of organized labor after the miners' strike, and the mass privatization?

Pray tell, where? Where is this? What world do you live in where the democrats are nicer than republicans?

The one where Democrats aren't so opposed to immigration, are pro-choice, support same-sex marriage, support trans rights, are for healthcare, are against employer discrimination, are for unions, etc. etc. It's harder for there to be clear-cut examples of a Democratic legislature versus a Republican legislature because the Congress is bicameral and the executive is presidential, but when the Democrats control basically everything you got things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, prohibition of child labor, the minimum wage, the Civil Rights Act, etc.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

27th January 2014, 15:03

I'm not sure how you (incorrectly) extrapolated all of that, but okay. All I mean by it is that some workers are more oppressed than others, and consequently we should recognize that some politicians oppress people more than others.

The conclusion simply doesn't follow; nothing after "consequently" has any relation to anything before it.

If all bourgeois politicians are equally bad for trans people, why do trans people have differing levels of privileges depending on what state or nation one is in? Wouldn't they be uniform if most liberals weren't motivated by identity politics?

And here, I think is the chief problem of your approach - you think reforms are granted by the "well-meaning" section of the bourgeoisie. The situation of trans* people in different administrative areas is different because, first of all, the material position of trans* people in different parts of the world economy is slightly different, and more importantly, because of the presence or absence of a militant queer or trans* movement.

And not only is liberal "identity politics" garbage, it is garbage that is particularly toxic for the liberation of trans* people, as anyone who has encountered radfems and their allies might tell you.

I'll repeat: the President of the United States will always be an imperialist incapable of directing the military because that is their role in the bourgeois system. The legislature is a different story.

"Incapable of directing the military"? I don't see how the current US president, or any of his predecessors, have been "incapable" in this regard.

And why is the legislature a different story? Its function in the preservation of bourgeois rule is equal to that of the executive.

So you truly don't understand, say, the difference between the United Kingdom under the Conservative Party and Thatcher and the United Kingdom under the Labour Party and James Callaghan? Between the Supplementary Benefits Act, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act and the Race Relations Act, versus the 3.5 million drop in labour union members, the weakening of organized labor after the miners' strike, and the mass privatization?

The "Winter of Discontent" started during Callaghan's ministry, Labour governments presided over British imperial rule, including racist massacres of the native population, and the massive jailing of gay and trans* people, and so on.

The one where Democrats aren't so opposed to immigration, are pro-choice, support same-sex marriage, support trans rights, are for healthcare, are against employer discrimination, are for unions, etc. etc. It's harder for there to be clear-cut examples of a Democratic legislature versus a Republican legislature because the Congress is bicameral and the executive is presidential, but when the Democrats control basically everything you got things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, prohibition of child labor, the minimum wage, the Civil Rights Act, etc.

All of these things were passed (often with the support of Republicans, under the Republicans, or Republican-led legislatures expanded them) due to the pressures of the workers' movement, black liberation etc. It's particularly misguided to attribute the CRA to Democrat benevolence when the Dixiecrats were an important section of the Democratic Party in the period.

Sabot Cat

27th January 2014, 20:58

The conclusion simply doesn't follow; nothing after "consequently" has any relation to anything before it.

Because people are oppressed in different degrees that aren't exclusively their class, politicians can be more or less oppressive towards them even if they're all bourgeois.

And here, I think is the chief problem of your approach - you think reforms are granted by the "well-meaning" section of the bourgeoisie. The situation of trans* people in different administrative areas is different because, first of all, the material position of trans* people in different parts of the world economy is slightly different, and more importantly, because of the presence or absence of a militant queer or trans* movement.

There's substantive, militant queer movements in Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, South Africa, and Brazil?

And not only is liberal "identity politics" garbage, it is garbage that is particularly toxic for the liberation of trans* people, as anyone who has encountered radfems and their allies might tell you.

Again, true, but liberals have some ideological commitment to fighting certain kinds of oppression.

"Incapable of directing the military"? I don't see how the current US president, or any of his predecessors, have been "incapable" in this regard.

Misstated that, I've since edited it.

And why is the legislature a different story? Its function in the preservation of bourgeois rule is equal to that of the executive.

True, but it's easier to point to a legislature for qualitative differences in liberal and conservative ideologies because they diverge primarily in domestic policy.

The "Winter of Discontent" started during Callaghan's ministry, Labour governments presided over British imperial rule, including racist massacres of the native population, and the massive jailing of gay and trans* people, and so on.

There are still differences, however minute; furthermore, I think the working class was better off under (old) Labour than the Conservatives just by examining the data from each administration.

All of these things were passed (often with the support of Republicans, under the Republicans, or Republican-led legislatures expanded them) due to the pressures of the workers' movement, black liberation etc. It's particularly misguided to attribute the CRA to Democrat benevolence when the Dixiecrats were an important section of the Democratic Party in the period.

Yes, and the struggle waged by oppressed peoples are infinitely more important than the piecemeal policies of reformers. However, these legislators don't have to pass anything that their wealthy investors don't tell them to, unless it makes them look bad. The Suffragist movement, the Civil Rights Movement and now the LGBT Rights Movement were and are all successful through gaining a voice on the national stage and appealing to the common humanity of the voters, or less romantically, making the politicians look bad for being the discriminatory assholes that they are. This isn't a viable tactic for the proletariat's struggle against the bourgeois because the latter are not really public figures who can be removed by ballot, and they can snuff out any voice that rises in opposition to them.

That is why it's necessary for workers to unite in a revolution, while voting remains important until that time comes.

RedHal

28th January 2014, 01:51

With Obama in charge we have had rise in "anti-terrorist" measures, more black people thrown in jail, and some other statistics

also i guess arabs and muslims aren't marginalized peoples? or do they not count because they aren't a part of the electorate?
lol capitalism won't stop on minorities though. Okay. That is possible in modern day politics.

more deportations, draconian measures against whistleblowers, increased war on terror, NSA, free money to banks, drones drones drones, how has the Obama administration been the lesser evil? The Democrats are the more effective evil, because the mainstream opposition is silenced and even some on the radical left are still drunk on Obamalaid.

Ele'ill

28th January 2014, 01:54

I don't vote I never have and never will, anyways what's this 'super bowl' that was mentioned? What exactly is it?

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 02:06

It is a match between two of the best teams in their leage of the National Football League. In other words, a very popular game of american football.

Sinister Intents

28th January 2014, 02:08

It is a match between two of the best teams in their leage of the National Football League. In other words, a very popular game of american football.
.
I refuse to vote here in the US as well, my family votes straight democrat, and I refuse to vote, I also don't care bout football haha

Yuppie Grinder

28th January 2014, 02:13

"if voting meant anything it'd be illegal" and so on and so on

The Jay

28th January 2014, 02:35

I don't vote I never have and never will, anyways what's this 'super bowl' that was mentioned? What exactly is it?

I think that it is the practice of sacrificing someone to Big Agriculture.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 03:22

So is there anything to do to end or reduce capitalism? There are no other options but revolution and i am not much of a revolutionary. I also don't see anybody else stepping up to revolt.

Sinister Intents

28th January 2014, 03:25

So is there anything to do to end or reduce capitalism? There are no other options but revolution and i am not much of a revolutionary. I also don't see anybody else stepping up to revolt.

Increase class consciousness and be overall good people and destroy peoples preconceived notions of communism and anarchism and avoid preaching. Revolution is the only option and I see no way around it, and I don't think it will be non violent. I would step up to revolt if I were in a massive enough group to attack the bourgeoisie

Marshal of the People

28th January 2014, 03:28

Increase class consciousness and be overall good people and destroy peoples preconceived notions of communism and anarchism and avoid preaching. Revolution is the only option and I see no way around it, and I don't think it will be non violent. I would step up to revolt if I were in a massive enough group to attack the bourgeoisie
But there is no reason not to try and get concessions from the bourgeois through the current system in the mean time.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 03:47

Whats this BS about voting for the lesser evil? They're both the same fucking thing (speaking from an american view of Democrat vs Republican) They're both bourgeois scum

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 03:51

Whats this BS about voting for the lesser evil? They're both the same fucking thing (speaking from an american view of Democrat vs Republican) They're both bourgeois scum

They're not the same for the least privileged in U.S. society, unfortunately, who can have their medical care, their welfare, their ability to get an abortion, their ability to naturalize their partner, their capacity to stand up to workplace discrimination, and the crucial capacity to organize in unions against employers all stripped by the state, with varying degrees of likelihood depending on whether or not liberal or conservative bourgeois politicians are in charge.

A Psychological Symphony

28th January 2014, 03:54

Sinister Intents

28th January 2014, 03:55

But there is no reason not to try and get concessions from the bourgeois through the current system in the mean time.

Indeed :) it'll be difficult though I think

Bostana

28th January 2014, 04:01

They're not the same for the least privileged in U.S. society, unfortunately, who can have their medical care, their welfare, their ability to get an abortion, their ability to naturalize their partner, their capacity to stand up to workplace discrimination, and the crucial capacity to organize in unions against employers all stripped by the state, with varying degrees of likelihood depending on whether or not liberal or conservative bourgeois politicians are in charge.

Yes, yes they are the same. Despite popular belief they are the same Imperialist scum. Oh wow some democrats are pro-choice and support marriage equality how fucking revolutionary are liberals!!! They're the same thing. THey support israeli war crimes, they are both against Unions that oppose the best interests of their political agenda. Jesus christ how can anyone on the left (or anyone for that matter) believe the lesser of two evils is ok to choose when it comes to political elections? What the fuck would Romney do different from Obama? And vice versa? What did Bush do different than Clinton? Why can;t people analyse history and make the fucking connection?
Whether Democrat or Republican they're both capitalist imperialist mass-murdering bourgeois scum bags!

EDIT:
How can you be an Anarchist or a communist if you vote and support a capitalist to run a bourgeois state

Democrats are scum and if you support them, you support capitalism.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 04:14

Yes, yes they are the same. Despite popular belief they are the same Imperialist scum. Oh wow some democrats are pro-choice and support marriage equality how fucking revolutionary are liberals!!! They're the same thing. THey support israeli war crimes, they are both against Unions that oppose the best interests of their political agenda. Jesus christ how can anyone on the left (or anyone for that matter) believe the lesser of two evils is ok to choose when it comes to political elections? What the fuck would Romney do different from Obama? And vice versa? What did Bush do different than Clinton? Why can;t people analyse history and make the fucking connection?
Whether Democrat or Republican they're both capitalist imperialist mass-murdering bourgeois scum bags!

EDIT:
How can you be an Anarchist or a communist if you vote and support a capitalist to run a bourgeois state

Democrats are scum and if you support them, you support capitalism.
For most voters, they don't care about if the person is a capitalist because they are capitalists themselves. They care more about other things. Also Clinton balanced the yearly budget and taxed the hell out of the bourgeoisie. His biggest problem was his sex scandal. Bush let banks gamble with proletariat money, started 2 wars, lowered taxes on the bourgeoisie, destroyed unions, and was a general idiot and made our country look dumber than it already is.

Romney would have taken away welfare and food stamps, further weakening the proletariat position. He would have also turned us into a theocracy run by his "Gods teachings" and his "Family Values". Obama on the other hand, although being a coward in terms of standing up to the bourgeoisie, helped make a stimulus to pull the economy out of the toilet and introduced a healthcare overhaul that actually saved us $~6 billion dollars a year after all revenue and expenses.

Although both sides are in the pockets of the bourgeoisie, the Democrats are obviously the lesser evil.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 04:35

They care more about other things. Also Clinton balanced the yearly budget and taxed the hell out of the bourgeoisie. His biggest problem was his sex scandal. Bush let banks gamble with proletariat money, started 2 wars, lowered taxes on the bourgeoisie, destroyed unions, and was a general idiot and made our country look dumber than it already is.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
This post dude. You're a fucking liberal.
I will now address each stupidity in this post. First off now Clinton did not tax the "hell out of the bourgeoisie." He actually gave many tax breaks to the corporations that supported his political campaign. (As does every candidate) Not only, but NAFTA allowed the corporations to lay off american workers and move down to mexico and hire workers that worker for less than 25 cents per hour. As for as Bush declaring wars and not Clinton shit, fucking dtupid. Remember KOSOVO y'know the Serbian civilians bombed by the U.S.. Not only did he kill innocent people in eastern europe but he had middle eastern villages carpet bombed in the name of fighting terrorism. Of course they killed more children than what the U.S. considered terrorists but hey minor details right?
So yeah, how great was Clinton?

Romney would have taken away welfare and food stamps, further weakening the proletariat position. He would have also turned us into a theocracy run by his "Gods teachings" and his "Family Values". Obama on the other hand, although being a coward in terms of standing up to the bourgeoisie, helped make a stimulus to pull the economy out of the toilet and introduced a healthcare overhaul that actually saved us $~6 billion dollars a year after all revenue and expenses.
Hahaha how does the economy help the proletariat? It doesn't it helps the bourgeoisie. It increases the money of the bourgeois scum. Slightly improves the money of the Upper Middle. But the working class is fucked and always stays the same.

Although both sides are in the pockets of the bourgeoisie, the Democrats are obviously the lesser evil.
You're a liberal dude. They're not different.

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 04:48

Yes, yes they are the same. Despite popular belief they are the same Imperialist scum. Oh wow some democrats are pro-choice and support marriage equality how fucking revolutionary are liberals!!!

Liberals are preferable to conservatives is all I'm saying, and not voting doesn't do anything to advance the liberation of the proletariat.

They're the same thing. THey support israeli war crimes, they are both against Unions that oppose the best interests of their political agenda. Jesus christ how can anyone on the left (or anyone for that matter) believe the lesser of two evils is ok to choose when it comes to political elections? What the fuck would Romney do different from Obama? And vice versa? What did Bush do different than Clinton? Why can;t people analyse history and make the fucking connection?
Whether Democrat or Republican they're both capitalist imperialist mass-murdering bourgeois scum bags!

EDIT:
How can you be an Anarchist or a communist if you vote and support a capitalist to run a bourgeois state

Democrats are scum and if you support them, you support capitalism.

I vote strategically for them so that the conservatives don't throw more people into poverty, allow more people to die of treatable ailments, and so on. Communism is not a religion. This isn't heresy. I'm acting in the interest of the proletariat, and that is what communists should always do. Sitting on my ass while reactionaries overrun the legislature is negligent, especially when you get things like South Carolina making martial rape laws such as this: "Sexual battery, as defined in Section 16-3-651(h), when accomplished through use of aggravated force, defined as the use or the threat of use of a weapon or the use or threat of use of physical force or physical violence of a high and aggravated nature, by one spouse against the other spouse if they are living together, constitutes the felony of spousal sexual battery and, upon conviction, a person must be imprisoned not more than ten years." Similarly narrow, patriarchal laws exist in Virginia, Oklahoma and Ohio, wherein its perfectly legal to rape one's spouse if one isn't directly using force. Conservatives give you 'right to work states', or states where conversion "therapy" is legal, or states where you can be legally fired for being gay or lesbian, and so on and so on and so on.

I don't know whether you are willingly ignorant of the differences, or simply don't care about them.

Yuppie Grinder

28th January 2014, 04:51

Bostana you're really in no place to laugh at someone and act like a know it all. He's new and admits that he's new, unlike you who's been a know it all since the start despite not knowing a whole lot (not an insult).
Haven't you repeatedly admitted to never having read Marx or Engels?

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 04:52

For most voters, they don't care about if the person is a capitalist because they are capitalists themselves. They care more about other things. Also Clinton balanced the yearly budget and taxed the hell out of the bourgeoisie. His biggest problem was his sex scandal. Bush let banks gamble with proletariat money, started 2 wars, lowered taxes on the bourgeoisie, destroyed unions, and was a general idiot and made our country look dumber than it already is.

Clinton was a legitimately terrible conservative President, honestly. One shouldn't forget his "welfare reform", DOMA, DADT, deregulation laws, the Kosovo War, the cruise missile strikes at South Sudan and the like, etc. (Not that the President is solely responsible for the legislation of the Republican Congress, but he sure as hell didn't veto what he could have.)

Romney would have taken away welfare and food stamps, further weakening the proletariat position. He would have also turned us into a theocracy run by his "Gods teachings" and his "Family Values". Obama on the other hand, although being a coward in terms of standing up to the bourgeoisie, helped make a stimulus to pull the economy out of the toilet and introduced a healthcare overhaul that actually saved us $~6 billion dollars a year after all revenue and expenses.

Ehh, not really. Romney would have been more openly belligerent, probably, but I don't think the differences are that strong when it comes to the presidency.

Although both sides are in the pockets of the bourgeoisie, the Democrats are obviously the lesser evil.

I agree with your overall premise, however.

Marshal of the People

28th January 2014, 05:05

Lets have a hypothetical question:

There are two candidates;

1. Adolph Hitler
2. Barrack Obama

Scenario 1: Each candidate has an equal amount of votes after everyone but you has voted. Now voting will be compulsory in this scenario. You have a choice on who to elect, either Obama or Hitler, now which one will you pick Obama or Hitler? If you are smart you will vote for Obama because he is obviously the lesser of the two evils.

Scenario 2: This will be the same as above except voting shall not be compulsory. If you abstain from voting there could be a redraw where there is a possibility of Hitler getting elected. And no one would want that (except maybe fascists).

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 05:12

Yes, yes they are the same. Despite popular belief they are the same Imperialist scum. Oh wow some democrats are pro-choice and support marriage equality how fucking revolutionary are liberals!!! They're the same thing. THey support israeli war crimes, they are both against Unions that oppose the best interests of their political agenda. Jesus christ how can anyone on the left (or anyone for that matter) believe the lesser of two evils is ok to choose when it comes to political elections? What the fuck would Romney do different from Obama? And vice versa? What did Bush do different than Clinton? Why can;t people analyse history and make the fucking connection?
Whether Democrat or Republican they're both capitalist imperialist mass-murdering bourgeois scum bags!

EDIT:
How can you be an Anarchist or a communist if you vote and support a capitalist to run a bourgeois state

Democrats are scum and if you support them, you support capitalism.
It took me about a half hour of searching but here "Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. This act created a 36 percent to 39.6 income tax for high-income individuals in the top 1.2% of wage earners." (Wikipedia) This is 5-8.6% higher than Bush (when i say bush i mean Bush senior). It goes on to explain some tax cuts for the proletariats.

"Businesses were given an income tax rate of 35%. The cap was repealed on Medicare. The taxes were raised 4.3 cents per gallon on transportation fuels and the taxable portion of Social Security benefits were increased. The Taxpayer Relief Act (1997) reduced some federal taxes. Due to certain phase-in rules, the rate 28% was lowered to 20% in the top capital gains. The bracket that was 15% fell to 10%. In 1980, a tax credit was put into place based on the number of individuals under the age of 17 in a household. In 1998, it was $400 per child. In 1999, it was raised to $500. High-income families had this Act phased out. This Act took out from taxation profits on the sale of a house of up to $500,000 for individuals who are married, and $250,000 for single individuals. Educational savings and retirement funds were given tax relief. Some of the expiring tax provisions were extended for selected businesses. Since 1998, an exemption could be taken out for those family farms and small businesses that qualified for it. In 1999, the correction of inflation on the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was accomplished. By the year 2006, the $600,000 estate tax exemption had risen to $1 million." (Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonomics

Bostana

28th January 2014, 05:20

Liberals are preferable to conservatives is all I'm saying, and not voting doesn't do anything to advance the liberation of the proletariat. .

How does supporting a capitalist party support the liberation of the proletariat? That contradicts itself.

How the fuck is any of the shit you said relevant to the U.S presidential elections

Marshal of the People

28th January 2014, 05:24

Democrats are scum and if you support them, you support capitalism.
I don't think anyone here supports the democrats. We just acknowledge that they are the lesser of the two main evils in America.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 05:30

How does supporting a capitalist party support the liberation of the proletariat? That contradicts itself.

How the fuck is any of the shit you said relevant to the U.S presidential elections
It is relevant because you said that Bill Clinton gave tax breaks to the rich and also Kosovo wasn't started by us and it was a joint NATO effort SUPPORTED by us.

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 05:30

How does supporting a capitalist party support the liberation of the proletariat? That contradicts itself.

Voting for a liberal is more beneficial to the proletariat than abstaining from voting, the latter of which only serves to make yourself feel more ideologically pure.

And... I take it you don't care about the issues I raised? That they are different in ways that impact people, even if they aren't much different in class relations? Okay then.

How the fuck is any of the shit you said relevant to the U.S presidential elections

I believe that the U.S. Congressional, state, and local elections are much more important than the Presidential election. When did I ever say that I was (only) talking about U.S. presidential elections?

Bostana

28th January 2014, 05:32

I don't think anyone here supports the democrats. We just acknowledge that they are the lesser of the two main evils in America.

yeah democrats support capitalism and ensure bourgeois dominance. How lesser of an evil. And eas they do they just admitted to it.

Fucking disgusting anyone would vote for Obama. I mean for godsake he drones children in the middle east. How could any of support that, you would be just as disgusting and evil as the man who orders out the drones

Marshal of the People

28th January 2014, 05:34

yeah democrats support capitalism and ensure bourgeois dominance. How lesser of an evil. And eas they do they just admitted to it.

Fucking disgusting anyone would vote for Obama. I mean for godsake he drones children in the middle east. How could any of support that, you would be just as disgusting and evil as the man who orders out the drones
I don't support Obama but I would rather have him as a leader than Hitler.

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 05:37

yeah democrats support capitalism and ensure bourgeois dominance. How lesser of an evil. And eas they do they just admitted to it.

Fucking disgusting anyone would vote for Obama. I mean for godsake he drones children in the middle east. How could any of support that, you would be just as disgusting and evil as the man who orders out the drones

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction and emotional baiting without building upon the points raised. No sir. :rolleyes:

Bostana

28th January 2014, 05:38

Voting for a liberal is more beneficial to the proletariat than abstaining from voting, the latter of which only serves to make yourself feel more ideologically pure.
No it's no. Keep watching the fucking liberal news after all they're the ones that gave you the idea liberals are fucking better than conservatives/ Whats this bullshit about ideologically pure? I know for a fact liberals are the fucking same as conservatives.

And... I take it you don't care about the issues I raised? That they are different in ways that impact people, even if they aren't much different in class relations? Okay then.
Issues you raised are idiotic romantic views that liberals could fucking cradle and help the poor. They never have in the past what the fuck makes you think they will now? If you support a liberal candidate than you support a capitalist maintain bourgeois power. And in that sense you wouldn't be an anarchist or a communist.

I believe that the U.S. Congressional, state, and local elections are much more important than the Presidential election. When did I ever say that I was (only) talking about U.S. presidential elections?
When did i suggest anything different from the U.S presidential elections. And how are congressman less corrupt than the president.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 05:39

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction and emotional baiting without building upon the points raised. No sir. :rolleyes:
You voted for Obama what the fuck should i say? Let's ignore the fact he kills people, lets not focus on the bad stuff that makes those who voted for him look bad, after all

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 05:41

Issues you raised are idiotic romantic views that liberals could fucking cradle and help the poor. They never have in the past what the fuck makes you think they will now? If you support a liberal candidate than you support a capitalist maintain bourgeois power. And in that sense you wouldn't be an anarchist or a communist.

So the martial rape, abortion, discrimination, welfare, healthcare stuff kind of didn't matter to you at all? You don't care that if someone rapes their spouse through coercion, they aren't going to be isolated from that individual because there's a conservative legislature as opposed to a liberal one? You don't care that parents have the "right" to mentally abuse their queer children in states with conservatives in power?

When did i suggest anything different from the U.S presidential elections. And how are congressman less corrupt than the president.

Well, I'm talking about the legislatures, which is where the differences between liberals and conservatives manifest. The president is still somewhat important because of their veto power, however, they're more of a diversionary tactic to depress voting for legislators.

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 05:44

You voted for Obama what the fuck should i say? Let's ignore the fact he kills people, lets not focus on the bad stuff that makes those who voted for him look bad, after all

I actually didn't vote for Obama because I wasn't old enough back then.

Also: do you pay taxes? If so, you're contributing materially to the drones you rightfully despite, and you should probably stop if you're willing to call those who voted in Obama 'just as evil' as him.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 05:47

Yuppie Grinder

28th January 2014, 05:48

damnnn this thread dumb as fuck
this is some youtube comments section level intellectualism

Bala Perdida

28th January 2014, 05:51

I just got here, and this talk of democrats being the lesser evil seems inaccurate. I'm not sure, but I see them as just as bad as the republicans. I mean, seeing them conjure up support from my culturaly different comrades (immigrants and minorities) is just repulsive. I mean, sure they're progressive but on real issues they will slow things down until the masses are at the doors ready to tear them from power. I've known many people that supported the democrats thinking they'll give them the paperwork to live in this USA, but the reform will come slowly, ineffectivly, and negatively for those outside the specific conditions for elegibility.
Seeing my comrades' feelings exploited for political support of their oppressor just makes me sick. The republicans have nothing to hide with their intolerance, but the democrats are lying and exploiting our hopes. I know everyone doesn't share the opinion, and the socially destructive conservatives are worse in their ideals but I would rather abstain than vote for a democrat.
The best thing in my opinion is to vote third party. Vote for the closest third party to acceptable (I don't know PSL), if your vote is disregarded than no harm done, but if one day a third party does gain power I highly doubt the current powers will let then govern. This way the fraud is exposed.
This is just my idea on dealing with the USA's bourgeois democracy. That's how I plan to deal with it myself. I mean a vote boycott seems like a good strategy, but I don't think the people today would go for it. We need much more support.

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 05:56

I just got here, and this talk of democrats being the lesser evil seems inaccurate. I'm not sure, but I see them as just as bad as the republicans. I mean, seeing them conjure up support from my culturaly different comrades (immigrants and minorities) is just repulsive. I mean, sure they're progressive but on real issues they will slow things down until the masses are at the doors ready to tear them from power.

So the things that effect your 'culturally different comrades' aren't "real issues"?

I've known many people that supported the democrats thinking they'll give them the paperwork to live in this USA, but the reform will come slowly, ineffectivly, and negatively for those outside the specific conditions for elegibility.

And allowing Republicans to win would make this process work better how, exactly?

Seeing my comrades' feelings exploited for political support of their oppressor just makes me sick. The republicans have nothing to hide with their intolerance, but the democrats are lying and exploiting our hopes. I know everyone doesn't share the opinion, and the socially destructive conservatives are worse in their ideals but I would rather abstain than vote for a democrat.
The best thing in my opinion is to vote third party. Vote for the closest third party to acceptable (I don't know PSL), if your vote is disregarded than no harm done, but if one day a third party does gain power I highly doubt the current powers will let then govern.

The spoiler effect is harm done, because you may have contributed to the rise of a conservative legislature or executive.

This way the fraud is exposed.

Anticapitalist third parties will continue to languish without needing to be banned because the bourgeois control the media.

This is just my idea on dealing with the USA's bourgeois democracy. That's how I plan to deal with it myself. I mean a vote boycott seems like a good strategy, but I don't think the people today would go for it. We need much more support.

Voter turn out is so low, I don't think anyone would notice a vote boycott. Also, no one is losing anything in such a scenario, other than the voters and their small power in selecting the government as an aggregate.

Skyhilist

28th January 2014, 06:01

Every anarchist is also a communist.

This isn't quite correct, mutualists are not communists.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

28th January 2014, 06:11

Laem Joek Tiem: Why are bourgeois elections like Alien vs Predator?

Because whoever wins, we lose

Bala Perdida

28th January 2014, 07:15

So the things that effect your 'culturally different comrades' aren't "real issues"?
Those are some of the precise issues I'm talking about, the only issue they overcome is the ideological one. They are more tolerant of people such as immigrants and minorities, but they are ineffective when it comes to helping them. The democrats of today are basically the republicans of the 90's.

And allowing Republicans to win would make this process work better how, exactly?
It would not, but I am attacking the notion that democrats are the lesser of two evils. If anything they are just slower when it comes to domestic policy. On a foreign policy standpoint, they are basically the same. Both will bomb other countries and both will condone, if not promote, brutality abroad just the same. Also my vote probably won't make a difference, I don't think the revolutionary socialists are a big enough force in the polls to actually make much o a difference.

The spoiler effect is harm done, because you may have contributed to the rise of a conservative legislature or executive.
My vote seems to insignificant at this point to even contribute to a liberal legislature or executive.

Anticapitalist third parties will continue to languish without needing to be banned because the bourgeois control the media.
I know, but it's best to promote them over one of the dominant two. If I have to throw my vote into a trash, I might as well enjoy it.

Voter turn out is so low, I don't think anyone would notice a vote boycott. Also, no one is losing anything in such a scenario, other than the voters and their small power in selecting the government as an aggregate.
That I agree with. I agreed with it in the first post, but I wasn't clear. I've heard that a boycott usually shows discontent in a country, but now it just seems more concerning.
Anyway, conservatives and liberals still hold the same influence in their states so I feel it doesn't make much of a difference. Whoever we vote for we're just gonna get screwed anyway.

Mather

28th January 2014, 09:32

@ TheCommunistManifestor: I have made the effort of replying to your earlier posts, can you please make the same effort and respond to my last one.

So is there anything to do to end or reduce capitalism? There are no other options but revolution and i am not much of a revolutionary. I also don't see anybody else stepping up to revolt.

Revolutions don't just fall out of the sky. They are a complex series of processes that develops over time as opposing class forces struggle and only when such struggle reaches a certain level of intensity do we then arrive at what we call a pre-revolutionary situation. That is, when the ruling class can no longer rule in the old way and the oppressed class no longer wishes to be ruled in the old way.

Our job as communists is to exacerbate these tensions and contradictions, not dampen them by fooling the working class into thinking that their class interests are in any way served by participating in (thus legitimising) the farce that is bourgeois democracy.

For most voters, they don't care about if the person is a capitalist because they are capitalists themselves. They care more about other things.

Wow, not only did you display a complete ignorance of what fascism was in your earlier posts, you display the same levels of ignorance here. A capitalist is someone who controls the means of production, not just someone who supports it as an idea. There are many workers who support capitalism yet they are still workers by virtue of the fact that have no control of the means of production.

Also Clinton balanced the yearly budget and taxed the hell out of the bourgeoisie.

Who gives a flying fuck about "balanced budgets"! Is it now the job of communists to care about whether the bourgeoisie are good at bookkeeping and keeping their own affairs in order? You do realise that the whole mantra about "balanced budgets" is an ideological ploy to justify cutting back on social services and attacks against the conditions of workers. In Britain the government is gutting the welfare state, all in the name of achieving a "balanced budget". It is really ironic that you end up repeating a mantra so beloved of conservatives, given your pathetic attempts throughout this thread to paint liberals as somehow being diametrically opposed to conservatives.

As for taxes, they have been continuously lowered for wealthy individuals and corporations over the last few decades, both under Republican and Democrat administrations.

His biggest problem was his sex scandal.

If your some conservative moraliser then yes, that may have been his biggest problem. Communists however don't care one bit about his sexual escapades, his anti-working class policies are a far more pressing concern.

Bush let banks gamble with proletariat money,

Banks have been doing that since the dawn of capitalism. Are you really that naive to believe that banks weren't doing that before 2001?

started 2 wars,

Democrats are imperialists and warmongers in the same vein as Republicans. Kennedy started the Vietnam War and it reached it's height under Lyndon B. Johnson. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 killing thousands and then went on to bomb Kosovo in 1999. Now we have Obama, who is continuing the war in Afghanistan and has expanded the 'war on terror' by bombing Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen with his beloved drone attacks. This is the same Obama who lied about wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay and who then signed the National Defense Authorization Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act) which now all but guarantees that it will remain open.

lowered taxes on the bourgeoisie,

No different to the Republicans then!

destroyed unions,

Unlike Clinton, who authored and signed the NAFTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) which has been responsible for a decline in the wages of workers and has seen their conditions come under continuous attack.

LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/bill-clintons-true-legacy_b_1852887.html)

LINK (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-democrats-betrayal-of-labor-unions/25256)

and was a general idiot and made our country look dumber than it already is.

Since all bourgeois politicians are our class enemy, I'd much rather have an idiot than a genius for an enemy. Imagine if Hitler was only a bit more smarter and tactically sound, he wouldn't have made the mistake he did in attacking the Soviet Union and fighting a war on two fronts which means he could have ended up winning WW2. I for one welcome dumb politicians, the dumber the better in my opinion as it will make our job of getting rid of them that much easier.

Romney would have taken away welfare and food stamps, further weakening the proletariat position.

And what are your beloved Democrats doing about the pitifully low wages of workers who end up having to survive by going through the humiliating process of getting food stamps?

He would have also turned us into a theocracy run by his "Gods teachings" and his "Family Values".

Hysterical liberal hyperbole!

Yes Romney is a social conservative but that does not mean that America is on the verge of becoming a theocracy. The idea that America could ever experience something along the lines of the Iranian Islamic Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution) is absurd and as likely as Britain going back to feudalism. Theocracies arise due to very specific material conditions that don't exist in America and the ruling class has no need for a theocracy as the current setup of bourgeois democracy suits them just fine.

Obama on the other hand, although being a coward in terms of standing up to the bourgeoisie,

This doesn't even make any logical sense, why on earth would he "stand up to the bourgeoisie" when he loyally serves that very same class himself? Cowardice has nothing to do with it!

helped make a stimulus to pull the economy out of the toilet and introduced a healthcare overhaul that actually saved us $~6 billion dollars a year after all revenue and expenses.

Actually if you had your facts straight the first major stimulus was done by George Bush and had the support of both Democrats and Republicans.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program)

These stimulus programs have fuck all to do with working class interests and were nothing more than bailouts for the very same actors who caused this mess in the first place, the banks. Your cheerleading of stimulus programs only goes to show how rotten your own politics are if you think that bailing out banks is in any way a progressive measure.

As for healthcare, all Obama has done is make private healthcare compulsory. He couldn't even contemplate the idea of a nationalised healthcare system that most advanced capitalist societies like Britain have.

Although both sides are in the pockets of the bourgeoisie, the Democrats are obviously the lesser evil.

You keep saying this in nearly every one of your posts. You can be stubborn and repeat this as much as you want but that does not change objective reality. The lesser evil tactic never has worked and never will work and the fact that you can't even articulate one good reason why you think so only confirms my view that you have no idea what your talking about.

Here is a hint, stop drinking the liberal kool aid and educate yourself. You'll be doing yourself a great favor.

Mather

28th January 2014, 09:38

and also Kosovo wasn't started by us and it was a joint NATO effort SUPPORTED by us.

America has the largest military in the world and a 'defence' budget that is bigger than all worlds defence budgets put together, which means that NATO is led by America and the idea that NATO would ever do something without America's approval is delusional.

Whether America started the war or not is irrelevant, it took part in it and bombed Kosovo and Serbia. That is a fact whether you can see it or not!

Mather

28th January 2014, 09:43

When picking a candidate, i don't care if they are capitalist or not. If their values are more liberal than the other candidate i will most likely vote for them. Democrats are usually more liberal so i will vote for them more often.

Why are you on this forum then?

Why do you call yourself a communist when it is clear that you are a liberal?

Communist consider liberals our class enemy as liberalism was the founding ideology of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. If you identify with the ruling ideology of the bourgeoisie then you cannot call yourself a communist in any objective sense.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 14:48

@ TheCommunistManifestor: I have made the effort of replying to your earlier posts, can you please make the same effort and respond to my last one.

Revolutions don't just fall out of the sky. They are a complex series of processes that develops over time as opposing class forces struggle and only when such struggle reaches a certain level of intensity do we then arrive at what we call a pre-revolutionary situation. That is, when the ruling class can no longer rule in the old way and the oppressed class no longer wishes to be ruled in the old way.

Our job as communists is to exacerbate these tensions and contradictions, not dampen them by fooling the working class into thinking that their class interests are in any way served by participating in (thus legitimising) the farce that is bourgeois democracy.

Wow, not only did you display a complete ignorance of what fascism was in your earlier posts, you display the same levels of ignorance here. A capitalist is someone who controls the means of production, not just someone who supports it as an idea. There are many workers who support capitalism yet they are still workers by virtue of the fact that have no control of the means of production.

Who gives a flying fuck about "balanced budgets"! Is it now the job of communists to care about whether the bourgeoisie are good at bookkeeping and keeping their own affairs in order? You do realise that the whole mantra about "balanced budgets" is an ideological ploy to justify cutting back on social services and attacks against the conditions of workers. In Britain the government is gutting the welfare state, all in the name of achieving a "balanced budget". It is really ironic that you end up repeating a mantra so beloved of conservatives, given your pathetic attempts throughout this thread to paint liberals as somehow being diametrically opposed to conservatives.

As for taxes, they have been continuously lowered for wealthy individuals and corporations over the last few decades, both under Republican and Democrat administrations.

If your some conservative moraliser then yes, that may have been his biggest problem. Communists however don't care one bit about his sexual escapades, his anti-working class policies are a far more pressing concern.

Banks have been doing that since the dawn of capitalism. Are you really that naive to believe that banks weren't doing that before 2001?

Democrats are imperialists and warmongers in the same vein as Republicans. Kennedy started the Vietnam War and it reached it's height under Lyndon B. Johnson. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 killing thousands and then went on to bomb Kosovo in 1999. Now we have Obama, who is continuing the war in Afghanistan and has expanded the 'war on terror' by bombing Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen with his beloved drone attacks. This is the same Obama who lied about wanting to close down Guantanamo Bay and who then signed the National Defense Authorization Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act) which now all but guarantees that it will remain open.

No different to the Republicans then!

Unlike Clinton, who authored and signed the NAFTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement) which has been responsible for a decline in the wages of workers and has seen their conditions come under continuous attack.

LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/bill-clintons-true-legacy_b_1852887.html)

LINK (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-democrats-betrayal-of-labor-unions/25256)

Since all bourgeois politicians are our class enemy, I'd much rather have an idiot than a genius for an enemy. Imagine if Hitler was only a bit more smarter and tactically sound, he wouldn't have made the mistake he did in attacking the Soviet Union and fighting a war on two fronts which means he could have ended up winning WW2. I for one welcome dumb politicians, the dumber the better in my opinion as it will make our job of getting rid of them that much easier.

And what are your beloved Democrats doing about the pitifully low wages of workers who end up having to survive by going through the humiliating process of getting food stamps?

Hysterical liberal hyperbole!

Yes Romney is a social conservative but that does not mean that America is on the verge of becoming a theocracy. The idea that America could ever experience something along the lines of the Iranian Islamic Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution) is absurd and as likely as Britain going back to feudalism. Theocracies arise due to very specific material conditions that don't exist in America and the ruling class has no need for a theocracy as the current setup of bourgeois democracy suits them just fine.

This doesn't even make any logical sense, why on earth would he "stand up to the bourgeoisie" when he loyally serves that very same class himself? Cowardice has nothing to do with it!

Actually if you had your facts straight the first major stimulus was done by George Bush and had the support of both Democrats and Republicans.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program)

These stimulus programs have fuck all to do with working class interests and were nothing more than bailouts for the very same actors who caused this mess in the first place, the banks. Your cheerleading of stimulus programs only goes to show how rotten your own politics are if you think that bailing out banks is in any way a progressive measure.

As for healthcare, all Obama has done is make private healthcare compulsory. He couldn't even contemplate the idea of a nationalised healthcare system that most advanced capitalist societies like Britain have.

You keep saying this in nearly every one of your posts. You can be stubborn and repeat this as much as you want but that does not change objective reality. The lesser evil tactic never has worked and never will work and the fact that you can't even articulate one good reason why you think so only confirms my view that you have no idea what your talking about.

Here is a hint, stop drinking the liberal kool aid and educate yourself. You'll be doing yourself a great favor.
I am horrible at this whole replying thing so i will list things in chronological order

I can completely accept your first paragraph and that was very helpful. In my second quote if i could i would change "capitalist" to " believe in capitalism themselves" i didn't word that very well but i get the misunderstanding. Bourgeoisie taxes have actually been raised from 31% to 39% (Wikipedia) since 1990. Reagan who is the savior of conservatives actually tried to lower it in "Trickle Down Economics" which was a massive failure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

I am sorry i can not find a source but in the 1990s or early 2000s someone made it legal again for banks to gamble with peoples' money and they just "happened" to crash just after that. This may sound a bit mean, but i consider a "war" when there are boots on the ground. Bush started a "war". Clinton and Obama put some sticks on the fire to keep it going for the next Republican :lol:

"No different than Republicans." No different? Bush was a republican!!!!! NAFTA wasn't exactly a success but it was supposed to help the extremely low wages in Mexico by offering competition in The United States but since the bourgeoisie are scum they did the opposite. http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta

"And what are your beloved Democrats doing about the pitifully low wages of workers who end up having to survive by going through the humiliating process of getting food stamps?" He is raising minimum wage for federal employees and soon private employees. He also is considering doing it in an executive action so the bourgeoisie doesn't strike it down. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/28/obama-to-raise-federal-minimum-wage-in-executive-action-tied-to-state-union/

Alright the bit about Romney turning USA into a theocracy is a bit much but he will still try to instill family values in the citizens. Oh you mean Bush was president in 2009 to make the stimulus fund?!?!?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

My last word is to say that liberal kool aid tastes pretty good.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 15:25

Also: do you pay taxes? If so, you're contributing materially to the drones you rightfully despite, and you should probably stop if you're willing to call those who voted in Obama 'just as evil' as him.

That's a pathetic argument. I have to pay taxes, you don't have to vote

So the martial rape, abortion, discrimination, welfare, healthcare stuff kind of didn't matter to you at all? You don't care that if someone rapes their spouse through coercion, they aren't going to be isolated from that individual because there's a conservative legislature as opposed to a liberal one? You don't care that parents have the "right" to mentally abuse their queer children in states with conservatives in power?
Oh wow democrats support gay marriage and pro-choice. They're so leftist right? Nope. Honestly it's so fucking great they support certain things but that doesn't make them less capitalist and it doesn't justify voting for them. They do more evil than harm. If you really want to prevent anti-women, homophobia or any laws like that. You take revolutionary actions. YUou don't support a capitalist party. Read marx dude

Well, I'm talking about the legislatures, which is where the differences between liberals and conservatives manifest. The president is still somewhat important because of their veto power, however, they're more of a diversionary tactic to depress voting for legislators.
Yeah we all know congressman aren't corrupt right? And nope there is no difference there either. Everyone there is a capitalist and support the imperialist military. Both parties go for the abolition of habeas corpus and support more excessive force. Most of all, they both support capitalist and if you vote for them you your serlf are giving the ok to support capitalism and if you do that you don't truly understand the cruelty of capitalism otherwise you wouldn't even consider voting for them.

#FF0000

28th January 2014, 15:54

Bush started a "war". Clinton and Obama put some sticks on the fire to keep it going for the next Republican

Oh so is this how y'all turn a blind eye to Obama's drone war, intervention in Libya, escalation in Afgahnistan,etc.?

He also is considering doing it in an executive action so the bourgeoisie doesn't strike it down. You realize Obama and the Democrats are funded and backed by "the bourgeoisie" as well, right? The democrats and the republicans are both bourgeois parties

My last word is to say that liberal kool aid tastes pretty good.You should read about and develop your politics before calling yourself something -- because you aren't a communist.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

28th January 2014, 16:19

Because people are oppressed in different degrees that aren't exclusively their class, politicians can be more or less oppressive towards them even if they're all bourgeois.

So, in the end, we're back to the liberal theory that women's, queer and trans*, national and racial oppression are not themselves the result of the class nature of society. That is not the case, however; capitalism can't not oppress women, queer and trans* people etc. Every reform won by one of these specially oppressed groups results in a less efficient capitalism (not that this is a bad thing; unlike liberals, we communists don't care about "the economy").

There's substantive, militant queer movements in Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, South Africa, and Brazil?

Unfortunately, despite the formal right to gay partnerships, South African society is extremely homophobic, with "corrective" rape being a particular problem. As for the rest, well, yes. As I recall it, the "Stalinists" in Brazil, usually considered the least friendly to gay rights, supported LGBT liberation almost from the start, leading to a split with a very nasty nationalist group.

Again, true, but liberals have some ideological commitment to fighting certain kinds of oppression.

Only to a very limited extend (good luck convincing liberals that "private" oppression needs to be fought) - and even this "ideological commitment" is irrelevant given their social position.

True, but it's easier to point to a legislature for qualitative differences in liberal and conservative ideologies because they diverge primarily in domestic policy.

But that's just the point; to us there is no qualitative difference. What have conservatives done, for example, that the liberals haven't? What reforms have the liberals granted that conservatives wouldn't have? That's the question you've been avoiding all this time.

There are still differences, however minute; furthermore, I think the working class was better off under (old) Labour than the Conservatives just by examining the data from each administration.

I don't know what governments you are comparing, but keep in mind the changing worldwide economic situation - i.e. it makes no sense to compare the first ministry of Wilson to that of Thatcher - compare Wilson to Macmillan, instead, or Major to Blair.

Yes, and the struggle waged by oppressed peoples are infinitely more important than the piecemeal policies of reformers. However, these legislators don't have to pass anything that their wealthy investors don't tell them to, unless it makes them look bad. The Suffragist movement, the Civil Rights Movement and now the LGBT Rights Movement were and are all successful through gaining a voice on the national stage and appealing to the common humanity of the voters, or less romantically, making the politicians look bad for being the discriminatory assholes that they are. This isn't a viable tactic for the proletariat's struggle against the bourgeois because the latter are not really public figures who can be removed by ballot, and they can snuff out any voice that rises in opposition to them.

That is why it's necessary for workers to unite in a revolution, while voting remains important until that time comes.

Again, I am sorry if this comes off as hostile, but your notion of struggle seems unbearably romantic to me. The bourgeoisie (who don't control the government directly, as if there were some secret capitalist directory who gives orders to the cabinet, but structurally, due to the nature of the bourgeois state) doesn't care about "looking bad" - it cares about direct material challenge to its rule. The Vietnam War didn't end because American imperialism started to look bad - to anyone with half a brain it already looked bad - but because there was a critical mass of angry young people who couldn't be restrained by social-democrats and liberals like Shachtman or Draper, there were riots, insurgencies and so on.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 17:17

Oh so is this how y'all turn a blind eye to Obama's drone war, intervention in Libya, escalation in Afgahnistan,etc.?

You realize Obama and the Democrats are funded and backed by "the bourgeoisie" as well, right? The democrats and the republicans are both bourgeois parties

You should read about and develop your politics before calling yourself something -- because you aren't a communist.
I do realize that they are but i look on what the democrats do for the proletariats and it seems better than the republicans.

The Jay

28th January 2014, 17:30

Did you read the post? I said vote for the lesser evil, i didn't say that the lesser evil was gonna be a good candidate. In the 2012 election it was either a facist or a capitalist, take your choice.

I really fucking hope that this wasn't a response to me. Read my post again and if you want to respond take some time to edit out the bullshit I just addressed.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 17:35

i can't remember who that post was to actually and i already know i was wrong on the facist thing.

#FF0000

28th January 2014, 17:37

I do realize that they are but i look on what the democrats do for the proletariats and it seems better than the republicans.

I don't think you actually follow politics at all, to be honest.

Comrade Jacob

28th January 2014, 17:48

I have a feeling this means: "Vote democrat".
Also the establishment of a capitalist dictatorship sadly might just be what the proletariat needs to do something. They've had bourgeois-democracy since the time of Marx and nothing on a big scale has really taken place. (I'll be honest I don't know much about the US's class struggle).

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 17:48

I don't think you actually follow politics at all, to be honest.
Yes i do. See i actually follow topics of debate between the 2 that most communists don't care about. I care about immigration reform, I care about a stimulus to help the economy, and i care about values that liberals usually care about. Does not wanting the economy to crash make me not a communist? Does debating on issues that are real for people you don't care about wrong? Maybe you should get off your high horse because you may think the economy crashing is great for your cause, well it isn't so great for the unemployed.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

28th January 2014, 17:52

Yes i do. See i actually follow topics of debate between the 2 that most communists don't care about. I care about immigration reform, I care about a stimulus to help the economy, and i care about values that liberals usually care about. Does not wanting the economy to crash make me not a communist? Does debating on issues that are real for people you don't care about wrong? Maybe you should get off your high horse because you may think the economy crashing is great for your cause, well it isn't so great for the unemployed.

"The economy" is simply a measure of how good the bourgeoisie is doing. Unemployment is caused by capitalism, not a lack of "stimulus packages" for the bourgeoisie. Likewise, liberal "immigration reform" usually means racist police-state measures directed against immigrants. Communists don't fight for immigration reforms, but for full freedom and citizenship rights to all immigrants.

#FF0000

28th January 2014, 17:56

Yes i do. See i actually follow topics of debate between the 2 that most communists don't care about. I care about immigration reform, I care about a stimulus to help the economy, and i care about values that liberals usually care about. Does not wanting the economy to crash make me not a communist? Does debating on issues that are real for people you don't care about wrong? Maybe you should get off your high horse because you may think the economy crashing is great for your cause, well it isn't so great for the unemployed.

Nah, the thing is that these are problems that the Democrats won't or can't fix, because they are endemic to capitalism itself. Instead of throwing support behind one of two bourgeois parties, we should be organizing an opposition to the system itself.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 18:01

"The economy" is simply a measure of how good the bourgeoisie is doing. Unemployment is caused by capitalism, not a lack of "stimulus packages" for the bourgeoisie. Likewise, liberal "immigration reform" usually means racist police-state measures directed against immigrants. Communists don't fight for immigration reforms, but for full freedom and citizenship rights to all immigrants.
The economy massively affects the petty bourgeoisie which in turn gets rid of any competition for the bourgeoisie. It is simple capitalism. The more buisnessess in a particular field the lower the price usually because of better competition. When there are less buisnessess then there is more monopoly and higher prices. Also it causes massive unemployment when buisnesses cut costs. I also don't see a communist government in place so full citizenship for all wouldn't pass congress.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

28th January 2014, 18:08

The economy massively affects the petty bourgeoisie which in turn gets rid of any competition for the bourgeoisie.

Time affects the petite bourgeoisie. As in, that stratum has been slowly dying since the birth of capitalist society.

It is simple capitalism. The more buisnessess in a particular field the lower the price usually because of better competition. When there are less buisnessess then there is more monopoly and higher prices. Also it causes massive unemployment when buisnesses cut costs.

One man's "simple capitalism" is another man's bourgeois analysis - unemployment is not caused by monopolies (and it's not as if communists are opposed to monopolies and for the petite bourgeoisie now), but by the normal functioning of capitalism. Reserve army of labor and all that.

I also don't see a communist government in place so full citizenship for all wouldn't pass congress.

So the solution is to place more cops in immigrant communities? Like hell it is. Reforms that affect immigrants (not Wall Street-sponsored "immigration reform", which even Bush supported) can only come from the pressure that a militant immigrant and workers' movement places on the bourgeoisie. Asking people to vote so that the bourgeois governments gives these reforms out of the goodness of their heart blunts working-class militancy and endangers the prospect of these reforms ever being enacted.

TheCommunistManifestor

28th January 2014, 18:15

Time affects the petite bourgeoisie. As in, that stratum has been slowly dying since the birth of capitalist society.

One man's "simple capitalism" is another man's bourgeois analysis - unemployment is not caused by monopolies (and it's not as if communists are opposed to monopolies and for the petite bourgeoisie now), but by the normal functioning of capitalism. Reserve army of labor and all that.

So the solution is to place more cops in immigrant communities? Like hell it is. Reforms that affect immigrants (not Wall Street-sponsored "immigration reform", which even Bush supported) can only come from the pressure that a militant immigrant and workers' movement places on the bourgeoisie. Asking people to vote so that the bourgeois governments gives these reforms out of the goodness of their heart blunts working-class militancy and endangers the prospect of these reforms ever being enacted.
i did not claim that monopolies cause unemployment. I claimed that a economic recession or crash causes unemployedment because buisnessess cut costs.

Five Year Plan

28th January 2014, 18:54

i did not claim that monopolies cause unemployment. I claimed that a economic recession or crash causes unemployedment because buisnessess cut costs.

I would be curious to hear your definition of fascism, and how Romney fits that definition.

goalkeeper

28th January 2014, 19:24

got better stuff to do

Per Levy

28th January 2014, 20:48

i did not claim that monopolies cause unemployment. I claimed that a economic recession or crash causes unemployedment because buisnessess cut costs.

but how do you explain unemployment when there isnt a recession or crisis going on?
also buisness cut costs because it means more profit for them not because they are "forced" to do it by the crisis, that is just a nice reason to throw at the proles.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 21:07

immigration reform,
Immigration reform? So liberals are for immigration reform? Even though that Obama has deported more mexican immigrants. In that 5 year span Obama has deported more than Bush did all his 8 years. In fact more than any other republican presidents.

I care about a stimulus to help the economy,
If you think the economy helps the proletariat than you are not a communist, don't know the function of capital, and need to read more Marx, Engels, or whatever.

well it isn't so great for the unemployed.
So let's just fall down on our knees and do whatever the bourgeoisie say to help the economy or else the proletariat will be fucked. Let's just forget about the revolution

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 21:39

I'll just repost my responses because I'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over and over and over. This thread is kind of wearing on me.

That's a pathetic argument. I have to pay taxes, you don't have to vote

Actually, not going to prison for tax evasion and not being homeless are choices (in this particular context) made for your own provisional well-being despite not cohering to your ideology, and those that I chose as well and understand. What I'm saying is maybe working against the forces that seek to stratify others and their well-being, for the small sacrifice of your peace of mind in checking a ballot, is a choice worth making.

Also, it's not impossible for you to move out of the country if you're old enough to pay taxes.

Oh wow democrats support gay marriage and pro-choice. They're so leftist right? Nope. Honestly it's so fucking great they support certain things but that doesn't make them less capitalist and it doesn't justify voting for them. They do more evil than harm. If you really want to prevent anti-women, homophobia or any laws like that. You take revolutionary actions. YUou don't support a capitalist party. Read marx dude

You can vote against the party that's worst for the proletarian liberation movement, dude.

Voting for a liberal is more beneficial to the proletariat than abstaining from voting, the latter of which only serves to make yourself feel more ideologically pure.

Yeah we all know congressman aren't corrupt right?

It's not that they're less corrupt, it's just that there are more differences in the legislature because that's where most domestic policy comes through.

And nope there is no difference there either.

So the martial rape, abortion, discrimination, welfare, healthcare stuff kind of didn't matter to you at all? You don't care that if someone rapes their spouse through coercion, they aren't going to be isolated from that individual because there's a conservative legislature as opposed to a liberal one? You don't care that parents have the "right" to mentally abuse their queer children in states with conservatives in power?

Everyone there is a capitalist and support the imperialist military. Both parties go for the abolition of habeas corpus and support more excessive force. Most of all, they both support capitalist and if you vote for them you your serlf are giving the ok to support capitalism and if you do that you don't truly understand the cruelty of capitalism otherwise you wouldn't even consider voting for them.

And... I take it you don't care about the issues I raised? That they are different in ways that impact people, even if they aren't much different in class relations? Okay then.

I really don't know you, but I can only assume that you aren't oppressed in any way other than being a part of the proletariat considering you don't give a fuck about the other ways people are subjugated.

So, in the end, we're back to the liberal theory that women's, queer and trans*, national and racial oppression are not themselves the result of the class nature of society. That is not the case, however; capitalism can't not oppress women, queer and trans* people etc. Every reform won by one of these specially oppressed groups results in a less efficient capitalism (not that this is a bad thing; unlike liberals, we communists don't care about "the economy").

Actually, it makes for a more efficient economy because it's better for them to have a wider array of possible merit that isn't cut off arbitrarily by categories of race, sex, etc. But yeah, that isn't my main focus either.

And even if those forms of oppression are only made possible through capitalism, they can be fought while capitalism still exists, as is suggested by the varying levels of oppression that exist for various kinds of people in different capitalist nations.

Unfortunately, despite the formal right to gay partnerships, South African society is extremely homophobic, with "corrective" rape being a particular problem. As for the rest, well, yes. As I recall it, the "Stalinists" in Brazil, usually considered the least friendly to gay rights, supported LGBT liberation almost from the start, leading to a split with a very nasty nationalist group.

I just want evidence that there exists a strong militant queer movement in almost every country where same-sex marriage is legal in order to demonstrate causation.

Only to a very limited extend (good luck convincing liberals that "private" oppression needs to be fought) - and even this "ideological commitment" is irrelevant given their social position.

They still vote differently enough to impact people's lives.

But that's just the point; to us there is no qualitative difference. What have conservatives done, for example, that the liberals haven't? What reforms have the liberals granted that conservatives wouldn't have? That's the question you've been avoiding all this time.

Look above for some of the things I've touched upon throughout this entire thread and that I haven't been avoiding at all.

Again, I am sorry if this comes off as hostile, but your notion of struggle seems unbearably romantic to me. The bourgeoisie (who don't control the government directly, as if there were some secret capitalist directory who gives orders to the cabinet, but structurally, due to the nature of the bourgeois state)

I'm well aware of this, but I'm referring to the politicians with this fear, not the bourgeoisie.

doesn't care about "looking bad" - it cares about direct material challenge to its rule. The Vietnam War didn't end because American imperialism started to look bad - to anyone with half a brain it already looked bad - but because there was a critical mass of angry young people who couldn't be restrained by social-democrats and liberals like Shachtman or Draper, there were riots, insurgencies and so on.

I think you're the unbearably romantic one for thinking that the bourgeois or state has ever been materially challenged in the modern United States. Maybe in the beginning of 20th Century, there was a chance. Maybe the 1930's. But not after the rise of the military-industrial complex. The Vietnam War ended because there was no longer any realistic chance at winning it, not because people in the Congress and the presidency were scared of college kids killing or maiming them.

goalkeeper

28th January 2014, 22:32

cba to read this whole thread but are people seriously arguing that it is imperative to vote? go move to australia

event bourgeois liberal theory doesn't say u need to vote, cause a vote for someone is an act of consent to for them to represent or govern you or whatever and if you don't want any of them to, well...

Remus Bleys

28th January 2014, 22:41

Also, it's not impossible for you to move out of the country if you're old enough to pay taxes.
This sounds a lot like "if you don't like it you can leave"

You can vote against the party that's worst for the proletarian liberation movement, dude.Which party is that? Do you think that republicans oppose socialism more than democrats? Are you serious?

It's not that they're less corrupt, it's just that there are more differences in the legislature because that's where most domestic policy comes through.So what? A "nicer" capitalism doesn't mean jack shit.

I really don't know you, but I can only assume that you aren't oppressed in any way other than being a part of the proletariat considering you don't give a fuck about the other ways people are subjugated.
Really pulling the oppression card? Really? Do you think that this is caused by some asswipes at congress or by real movements?

Actually, it makes for a more efficient economy because it's better for them to have a wider array of possible merit that isn't cut off arbitrarily by categories of race, sex, etc. But yeah, that isn't my main focus either. A better economy wow. So non-collaborationist. Wait, no it isn't!

And even if those forms of oppression are only made possible through capitalism, they can be fought while capitalism still exists, as is suggested by the varying levels of oppression that exist for various kinds of people in different capitalist nations.No this is a development issue. But the oppressed become oppressed in new insidious ways as a result of capitalism.

I just want evidence that there exists a strong militant queer movement in almost every country where same-sex marriage is legal in order to demonstrate causation. because gay marriage is so well connected to marriage? Stonewall wasn't about marriage fyi.

They still vote differently enough to impact people's lives. lolwut

Look above for some of the things I've touched upon throughout this entire thread and that I haven't been avoiding at all. these were addressed already

I'm well aware of this, but I'm referring to the politicians with this fear, not the bourgeoisie. so this is proof you don't understand the class nature of the state

I think you're the unbearably romantic one for thinking that the bourgeois or state has ever been materially challenged in the modern United States. Maybe in the beginning of 20th Century, there was a chance. Maybe the 1930's. But not after the rise of the military-industrial complex. The Vietnam War ended because there was no longer any realistic chance at winning it, not because people in the Congress and the presidency were scared of college kids killing or maiming them.
you have a fucked up position right here. So you seriously think that it was the military-industrial complex that is preventing proletarian power in the US? lol

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 22:49

This sounds a lot like "if you don't like it you can leave"

I'm just pointing out that paying taxes is a voluntary act like voting.

Which party is that? Do you think that republicans oppose socialism more than democrats? Are you serious?

I don't know, which one has been acting as more of an acid on our ability to unionize for the last half century? Can you really not tell that one is worse than the other?

So what? A "nicer" capitalism doesn't mean jack shit.

It means something to the people affected by it.

Really pulling the oppression card? Really? Do you think that this is caused by some asswipes at congress or by real movements?

Asswipes at Congress and state legislatures are the authorities that are viewed with legitimacy by the police and military, so their pursued policies have real material consequences.

A better economy wow. So non-collaborationist. Wait, no it isn't!

The argument was that the bourgeois would be opposed to other kinds of oppression being lifted, when the opposite could be true for this reason.

No this is a development issue. But the oppressed become oppressed in new insidious ways as a result of capitalism.
because gay marriage is so well connected to marriage? Stonewall wasn't about marriage fyi.

You don't think I know that Stonewall was pretty much appropriated by the petit-bourgeois gay movement to the exclusion of trans people? Furthermore, same-sex marriage was the original topic of discussion and linked to queer liberation by the poster I was responding to.

so this is proof you don't understand the class nature of the state

Not all of the bourgeois are politicians, although all politicians are bourgeois.

you have a fucked up position right here. So you seriously think that it was the military-industrial complex that is preventing proletarian power in the US? lol

An extremely powerful military and a lack of class consciousness, yes.

#FF0000

28th January 2014, 22:54

You can vote against the party that's worst for the proletarian liberation movement, dude.

And what we've been saying is that the Democrats and Republicans are too similar for even liberals to cry "lesser evil" now. The Democrats and Republicans both work against us in different ways.

Remus Bleys

28th January 2014, 22:58

I'm just pointing out that paying taxes is a voluntary act like voting.
LOL

I don't know, which one has been acting as more of an acid on our ability to unionize for the last half century? Can you really not tell that one is worse than the other?
Um Rahm Emmanuel is a democrat.

It means something to the people affected by it. Whoosh.
This "nicer" capitalism is just as "nasty" but it is simply more subtle.

Asswipes at Congress and state legislatures are the authorities that are viewed with legitimacy by the police and military, so their pursued policies have real material consequences.

This doesn't address what I wrote at all. Not sure why you thought it did.

The argument was that the bourgeois would be opposed to other kinds of oppression being lifted, when the opposite could be true for this reason. A bad economy and a good economy are capitalism, communists should not work for a good economy.

You don't think I know that Stonewall was pretty much appropriated by the petit-bourgeois gay movement to the exclusion of trans people? Furthermore, same-sex marriage was the original topic of discussion and linked to queer liberation by the poster I was responding to. Same sex marriage ain't got shit to do with the queer movement.

Not all of the bourgeois are politicians, although all politicians are bourgeois. Useless platitude. Politicians are tools of the bourgeoisie.

An extremely powerful military and a lack of class consciousness, yes.
So in the thirties, do you believe we could vote socialism in? Some anarchist you are.

Ceallach_the_Witch

28th January 2014, 22:59

I'll never vote for a candidate I don't agree with. I've made my stance on voting reasonably clear in other threads - I don't entirely discount the ballot as a political tool and I personally think voting serves at least some utility (although I don't think it represents a direct route to revolution or anything like that.) I go in to vote because I think it is vaguely worth the few minutes it takes for me, and if there is no suitable candidate then I'll spoil my ballot by writing that on my paper. As far as I see it it's a slightly more visible act of defiance and if nothing else it makes me feel a bit better.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 23:15

I'll just repost my responses because I'm getting tired of saying the same things over and over and over and over. This thread is kind of wearing on me.
Dude can you fucking read?
You are completely ignoring what i post in response to you.

Also, it's not impossible for you to move out of the country if you're old enough to pay taxes.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/30/30e37f789899dcc96da5269fe6cb82c6c1014a90cf44d56fd5 b90d2fa7dfcb27.jpg

You can vote against the party that's worst for the proletarian liberation movement, dude.
How are two capitalist parties that support capitalism and ensure bourgeois power help the proletarian liberation. Do you have to practice and being completely numb to facts?

I really don't know you, but I can only assume that you aren't oppressed in any way other than being a part of the proletariat considering you don't give a fuck about the other ways people are subjugated.

Dude I'm Bi-Sexual trust me I understand queer oppression.
You're a fucking broken record dude. I keep telling you shit but I see it goes through one ear and right out the other. Quite frankly it's getting annoying. To say that a pro-capitalist party will somehow in anyway help proletarian liberation is fucking idiotic. That's like saying a pro-communist party will help the rise of the bourgeoisie. It makes no fucking sense. Again I have to repeat what I stated earlier because for some reason you can't comprehend anything I write and just repeat the same shit you said earlier in different fucking forms. So once again. They're Democrats who are against gay marriage (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/291097-bucking-the-trend-the-house-democrats-who-oppose-gay-marriage) women's rights (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/democrats-against-abortion/) and immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/27/obama-is-deporting-more-immigrants-than-bush-republicans-dont-think-thats-enough/).
But here the big thing. THEY SUPPORT CAPITALISM. THEY ARE A CAPITALIST PARTY. IF YOU VOTE FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE YOU ARE SUPPORTING CAPITALISM. Simple science I do not know why you can't comprehend. I think voting is best summed up in this Marx quote:

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."

EDIT:
If you think Democrats helped unions. You need a fucking history lesson. As both parties were gain unions in the early 1900s when they first started making waves.Unions were able to gain power through workers not fucking politicans

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 23:27

Remus Bleys

28th January 2014, 23:29

Per Levy

28th January 2014, 23:31

well one thing this thread has thought me is that there seriously are anarchists and even a council communist(the irony) who think voting for a bourgois party is all fine and dandy and somehow lessens the power of capital on us.

Originally Posted by Red Rose
Also, it's not impossible for you to move out of the country if you're old enough to pay taxes.

totally if you have the money otherwise you cant afford to move and other countries dont want you because you're just a worker and therefore unimportent. not to mention that you have to pay taxes in another country as well.

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 23:33

1. enough?
2. I dont think anyone said voting strengthens capitalism, the argument is that voting is fucking stupid.

Oh, so this wasn't said:
"THEY SUPPORT CAPITALISM. THEY ARE A CAPITALIST PARTY. IF YOU VOTE FOR A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE YOU ARE SUPPORTING CAPITALISM. Simple science I do not know why you can't comprehend."

Evidently voting is a means by which capitalism can be supported, and by not voting, fought against.

Remus Bleys

28th January 2014, 23:36

Oh, so this wasn't said:

Evidently voting is a means by which capitalism can be supported, and by not voting, fought against.
well thats stupid, but I think the sentiment behind it is more of a "if you actively support or encourage people to support the democrats" which you do. In that case, you are being a liberal and helping capitalism.
Aren't you the same person who thought that Hawaii had a revolution when it became democrat controlled? This is rather telling of what a revolution is to you. I doubt you are an anarchist. No, I'm gonna go farther. You aren't an anarchist.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

28th January 2014, 23:37

So wait: you all maintain that politicians don't bring about political change, but movements do through direct action because that's where their material basis of the state lies (which is true enough), yet you believe at the same time that voting for capitalists "supports" them or "aids" them? How?

Who said that? I'm too tired to respond to the rest of your reply to me - and I mean, given that you refuse to recognize anything bad done by your precious Democrats, what's the point - but this is such a huge straw man. You aren't supporting capitalists by voting, you're supporting them by acting as an unpaid propaganda outlet for the Democrats and urging workers and the oppressed to vote instead of organizing.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 23:38

Evidently voting is a means by which capitalism can be supported, and by not voting, fought against.

So you're telling me that if you vote for Obama that is in no way supporting capitalism?

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 23:39

So you're telling me that if you vote for Obama that is in no way supporting capitalism?

Nope, because voting doesn't determine whether or not we have capitalism or communism, but liberalism or conservatism. Voting doesn't "help" capitalists, because their power lies in owning the means of production, not through a certain amount of ballots in favor of them.

Bostana

28th January 2014, 23:51

Nope, because voting doesn't determine whether or not we have capitalism or communism, but liberalism or conservatism. Voting doesn't "help" capitalists, because their power lies in owning the means of production, not through a certain amount of ballots in favor of them.

So you;re telling me that if you vote for a capitalist it in no way promote imperialism or capitalist views? Thats your belief thats what your sticking to. Like voting for a christian party doesn't promote christian views is that what you're telling me?

Ceallach_the_Witch

28th January 2014, 23:56

don't vote, set fire to a police station.

Sinister Intents

28th January 2014, 23:56

So you;re telling me that if you vote for a capitalist it in no way promote imperialism or capitalist views? Thats your belief thats what your sticking to. Like voting for a christian party doesn't promote christian views is that what you're telling me?

Voting in a way can promote those views, but I don't think voting will necessarily promote capitalism. You could be voting because your family is insisting it upon you like my family did me when I voted the only time I did, and I voted Obama, it pissed off all the old conservatives in the room. I'm with what Red Rose said.

Sinister Intents

28th January 2014, 23:57

don't vote, set fire to a police station.

And THE BANKS hahaha!!

Sabot Cat

28th January 2014, 23:57

So you;re telling me that if you vote for a capitalist it in no way promote imperialism or capitalist views? Thats your belief thats what your sticking to. Like voting for a christian party doesn't promote christian views is that what you're telling me?

I'm telling you that if you vote capitalist, it doesn't empower them any more because your vote is not the basis of their power. So not voting doesn't matter one way or another to the capitalists because they'll possess the means of production no matter what you do. However, it matters to people who are oppressed more by conservatives than liberals.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

28th January 2014, 23:58

don't vote, set fire to a police station.

Don't vote, smash up Democrats like it's 1968.

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 00:11

I'm telling you that if you vote capitalist, it doesn't empower them any more because your vote is not the basis of their power. So not voting doesn't matter one way or another to the capitalists because they'll possess the means of production no matter what you do. However, it matters to people who are oppressed more by conservatives than liberals.
How do conservatives oppress people more than liberals? Yes it may sound like a silly question but think long and hard by it. Give a good reason for it.

Also voting is a tactic. The idea that we shouldn't vote because it strengthens capitalism is wrong. We don't pretend like institutions of power don't exist: they do and to act like all we need to do is close are eyes and cover our ears to ignore it is infantile. Don't vote because its stupid, don't encourage people to vote because its an argument in favor of the bourgeoisie, but its a bit stupid to act as if some random worker going out and voting is somehow the sole thing keeping the bourgeois in power, and it implies that if we vote in a communist party we can overcome capitalism. Sure, we may strengthen one segment of the bourgeoisie over the other but overall as a class it doesn't matter to them if you vote or don't.

Bostana

29th January 2014, 00:42

Someone call the CPUSA sand say it's okay that they support Obama

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 00:50

How do conservatives oppress people more than liberals? Yes it may sound like a silly question but think long and hard by it. Give a good reason for it.

Compare these maps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_Uni ted_States.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_counties_and_cities_with_gender_identity_p rotection.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LGBT_housing_discrimination.svg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/Medicaid.png

http://www.parighttowork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mapofrtwstates-0011.jpg

With this one:

http://www.statescape.com/resources/maps/partysplitsmap.aspx

The Democrats are pretty consistently better for people than Republicans even if they're both capitalists and imperialists, as far as people within the states go. There are probably exceptions, but as far as I can tell if Republicans get elected to the state legislature it's more likely that I can be legally denied employment and housing, not to mention medical benefits, the right to work laws and the aforementioned marital rape laws.

TheCommunistManifestor

29th January 2014, 01:17

Guys understand this, a candidate being a democrat or a republican doesn't matter. It matters if you are liberal or conservative. Also, please post links and sources when you state a major fact or argument. The people siding with voting in this thread have posted links and evidence and all te opposition has done is say "votings bad, your stupid"

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 01:21

Guys understand this, a candidate being a democrat or a republican doesn't matter.
Good

It matters if you are liberal or conservative.
oh gawd

Also, please post links and sources when you state a major fact or argument.
lol are you the debater?

The people siding with voting in this thread have posted links and evidence and all te opposition has done is say "votings bad, your stupid"
literally the opposite is true

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 01:27

Compare these maps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_Uni ted_States.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_counties_and_cities_with_gender_identity_p rotection.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LGBT_housing_discrimination.svg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/04/Medicaid.png

http://www.parighttowork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mapofrtwstates-0011.jpg

With this one:

http://www.statescape.com/resources/maps/partysplitsmap.aspx

The Democrats are pretty consistently better for people than Republicans even if they're both capitalists and imperialists, as far as people within the states go. There are probably exceptions, but as far as I can tell if Republicans get elected to the state legislature it's more likely that I can be legally denied employment and housing, not to mention medical benefits, the right to work laws and the aforementioned marital rape laws.
all this post does is tell of peoples sociological attitudes (and implies some anti-southern shit, thats not cool). The Democrats did not make this happen, the democrats pander to the ideologies formed from these states,
These other things are not the result of the ideologies of these people, they are the ideologies of this movement. If this movement existed but the people who voted for democrats for whatever reason just didn't vote and we had a republican controlled legislation i guarantee you that republicans would put this stuff into effect.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 01:35

all this post does is tell of peoples sociological attitudes (and implies some anti-southern shit, thats not cool).

Oh... kay then...? You realize I didn't invent the facts represented by these maps, right? You can hardly accuse me of being "anti-southern" for showing that most states controlled by conservative legislatures (not all of which are in the South; I happen to live Indiana, which has a conservative legislature) have consistently worse LGBT discrimination and housing laws, employment laws, medical laws, etc.

The Democrats did not make this happen, the democrats pander to the ideologies formed from these states,
These other things are not the result of the ideologies of these people, they are the ideologies of this movement. If this movement existed but the people who voted for democrats for whatever reason just didn't vote and we had a republican controlled legislation i guarantee you that republicans would put this stuff into effect.

I don't your apprehending the available data in a parsimonious way. The ideology of the legislature is a pretty direct cause for what kind of laws they'll pass.

Ele'ill

29th January 2014, 01:38

New rule, if someone makes a thread topic that there has already been 999999999999999999999 of without adding a new take to what was the previous 999999999999999999999 discussions, they get automatically infracted and if it happens again they get banned.

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 01:40

some blah blah blah

I don't your apprehending the available data in a parsimonious way. The party of the legislature is a pretty direct cause for what kind of laws they'll pass.
seriously? How many times do I need to explain this to you? Why cannot your liberal mind grasp this idea? And don't you dare make this personal about how you are queer. I'm queer too, its irrelevant to the thread at hand so shut the fuck up about it please.
now, this thing you're bourgeois mind cannot seem to fathom is this: these parties are not responsible for any so-called "gains." These "gains" are a concession from the state to sedate real movements. The fact you don't understand this is worrisome. If there was no movement then capital would not have to adapt this movement to itself and thus this legislation would not be proposed in the first place.

Bostana

29th January 2014, 01:48

Bostana

29th January 2014, 01:51

Oh... kay then...? You realize I didn't invent the facts represented by these maps, right? You can hardly accuse me of being "anti-southern" for showing that most states controlled by conservative legislatures (not all of which are in the South; I happen to live Indiana, which has a conservative legislature) have consistently worse LGBT discrimination and housing laws, employment laws, medical laws, etc.

We have a Republican Michigan, Indiana, Virginia, Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin. This is more based on the fact southerner reps are more homophobiac compared to northern reps. So i don't get the point of this map.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 01:57

seriously? How many times do I need to explain this to you? Why cannot your liberal mind grasp this idea? And don't you dare make this personal about how you are queer. I'm queer too, its irrelevant to the thread at hand so shut the fuck up about it please.

I'm going to assert that I'm queer as much as I fucking want to, and I resent you for trying to shut me up about it. And it is directly relevant, because again, I can be denied rent or a job and it's legal because there's conservatives in my state legislature. Again, I'm sorry I'm actually personally affected by the shit we're discussing.

now, this thing you're bourgeois mind cannot seem to fathom is this:

Name calling isn't an effective debating tactic, I don't think.

these parties are not responsible for any so-called "gains." These "gains" are a concession from the state to sedate real movements. The fact you don't understand this is worrisome. If there was no movement then capital would not have to adapt this movement to itself and thus this legislation would not be proposed in the first place.

There are vigorous movements in places with these laws, and I think it's kind of ingenuous to imply that we aren't actively organizing against these conservative legislatures every step of the way. Unfortunately, voting for people who actually give a damn about what advocates want is a part of the process.

So when a liberal president drones children in the middle east, essential oppressing the Arabs, if you will. That doesn't matter to you because you prefer vote over revolutionary action. Lol you're will to make that sacrifice

I don't prefer voting to revolutionary action as far as class conflict goes, because voting won't take away capitalism or imperialism. It will just give you liberal capitalism or conservative capitalism. The former is better for people right now until enough of the populace becomes class conscious and organizes in sufficiently large numbers against the bourgeois to seize the means of production.

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 02:02

I'm going to assert that I'm queer as much as I fucking want to, and I resent you for trying to shut me up about it. And it is directly relevant, because again, I can be denied rent or a job and it's legal because there's conservatives in my state legislature. Again, I'm sorry I'm actually personally affected by the shit we're discussing.
The problem is that this is political not personal. Keep those separate. And the reason you should kindly shut up is that you act like you are somehow special, that this is something you are personally faced with and i should feel bad for when in fact the SAME THING FUCKING APPLIES TO ME so do kindly shut up. You are also under the false assumption that to know the solution of something one has to have lived through that exact experience. While there is some truth to that on a whole is incorrect and liberal.

Name calling isn't an effective debating tactic, I don't think.Voting for Democrats isn't an effective tactic, I don't think.

There are vigorous movements in places with these laws, and I think it's kind of ingenuous to imply that we aren't actively organizing against these conservative legislatures every step of the way. Unfortunately, voting for people who actually give a damn about what advocates want is a part of the process.lol. Did you ignore what I said? I'm not going to repeat myself, I am afraid.

I don't prefer vote to revolutionary action; voting won't take away capitalism or imperialism. It will just give you liberal capitalism or conservative capitalism. The former is better for people right now until enough of the populace becomes class conscious and organizes in sufficiently large numbers against the bourgeois to seize the means of production.WHY? I HAVE ASKED WHY SEVERAL TIMes and you consistently ignore me.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:14

The problem is that this is political not personal. Keep those separate.

Why?

And the reason you should kindly shut up is that you act like you are somehow special, that this is something you are personally faced with and i should feel bad for when in fact the SAME THING FUCKING APPLIES TO ME so do kindly shut up.

First of all, I acknowledge other people can be threatened by these things, and I'm concerned for their well-being as well.

Secondly, I don't think we're in precisely the same situations if you're actually in Denmark, where many of these protections are already in place (since 1996 for LGBT employment discrimination prohibition, which is longer than you've been alive and almost as long as I've been alive). The same is simply not true for Indiana, and many states in the U.S., which is something I don't think you're appreciating here.

You are also under the false assumption that to know the solution of something one has to have lived through that exact experience. While there is some truth to that on a whole is incorrect and liberal.

I think it's easier to suggest that things like housing and employment discrimination aren't somehow important enough to cast a ballot on if one doesn't actually have either of those things threatened.

lol. Did you ignore what I said? I'm not going to repeat myself, I am afraid.

WHY? I HAVE ASKED WHY SEVERAL TIMes and you consistently ignore me.

You actually dismissed my evidence as 'anti-southern' and then rambled about sociological causes.

TheCommunistManifestor

29th January 2014, 02:17

The problem is that this is political not personal. Keep those separate. And the reason you should kindly shut up is that you act like you are somehow special, that this is something you are personally faced with and i should feel bad for when in fact the SAME THING FUCKING APPLIES TO ME so do kindly shut up. You are also under the false assumption that to know the solution of something one has to have lived through that exact experience. While there is some truth to that on a whole is incorrect and liberal.

Voting for Democrats isn't an effective tactic, I don't think.

lol. Did you ignore what I said? I'm not going to repeat myself, I am afraid.

WHY? I HAVE ASKED WHY SEVERAL TIMes and you consistently ignore me.
By saying "voting for democrats isn't an effective tactic, i don't think." you are in fact saying voting for democrats is a good tactic.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:22

By saying "voting for democrats isn't an effective tactic, i don't think." you are in fact saying voting for democrats is a good tactic.

I think quibbling about people's grammar is rude and irrelevant to the validity of their arguments. If you think Remus is wrong, debate his points and not the style in which he presents them. =/

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 02:27

Why? 1. no one cares
2. ill quote my post "You are also under the false assumption that to know the solution of something one has to have lived through that exact experience. While there is some truth to that on a whole is incorrect and liberal."
3. oh look another quote " that this is something you are personally faced with and i should feel bad for when in fact the SAME THING FUCKING APPLIES TO ME so do kindly shut up."
if you don't read my posts im gonna stop replying.

First of all, I acknowledge other people can be threatened by these things, and I'm concerned for their well-being as well.so talk about them.

Secondly, I don't think we're in precisely the same situations if you're actually in Denmark, where many of these protections are already in place (since 1996 for LGBT employment discrimination prohibition, which is longer than you've been alive and almost as long as I've been alive). The same is simply not true for Indiana, and many states in the U.S., which is something I don't think you're appreciating here. lol im in ohio

I think it's easier to suggest that things like housing and employment discrimination aren't somehow important enough to cast a ballot on if one doesn't actually have either of those things threatened.k
ill quote myself
"now, this thing you're bourgeois mind cannot seem to fathom is this: these parties are not responsible for any so-called "gains." These "gains" are a concession from the state to sedate real movements. The fact you don't understand this is worrisome. If there was no movement then capital would not have to adapt this movement to itself and thus this legislation would not be proposed in the first place. "

You actually dismissed my evidence as 'anti-southern' and then rambled about sociological causes.no i didnt.

By saying "voting for democrats isn't an effective tactic, i don't think." you are in fact saying voting for democrats is a good tactic.
Hey the debater shut the fuck up

TheCommunistManifestor

29th January 2014, 02:30

I think quibbling about people's grammar is rude and irrelevant to the validity of their arguments. If you think Remus is wrong, debate his points and not the style in which he presents them. =/
i am saying it is unclear what he meant i am ot insulting him or anyone else for that matter. In fact, if you want to talk about insults,i have been called either stupid or an idiot multiple times on this thread.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:31

1. no one cares
2. ill quote my post "You are also under the false assumption that to know the solution of something one has to have lived through that exact experience. While there is some truth to that on a whole is incorrect and liberal."
3. oh look another quote " that this is something you are personally faced with and i should feel bad for when in fact the SAME THING FUCKING APPLIES TO ME so do kindly shut up."
if you don't read my posts im gonna stop replying.

so talk about them.

lol im in ohio

Okay. It's a bad thing that you and pretty much all queer people can be called into some employer's room, and they can legally say to you, "You're fired because I don't want to employ queer people." Or that a landlord can through you out for the same reason. This is why trans unemployment and homelessness is endemic around the nation (http://transequality.org/PDFs/Executive_Summary.pdf), with rates double to that of the rest of the population, with workplace harassment at even higher levels, and because it doesn't seem like there's a socialist revolution on the horizon, we need to get laws passed to address discrimination against us.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:35

i am saying it is unclear what he meant i am ot insulting him or anyone else for that matter. In fact, if you want to talk about insults,i have been called either stupid or an idiot multiple times on this thread.

As have I, but retributive justice is a fallacious mode of conflict resolution. I don't think Remus has actually called you or me stupid directly anyway, and to to put my last sentence more prosaically, "two wrongs don't make a right". You can disagree with someone without being rude to them. =/

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 02:36

Okay. It's a bad thing that you and pretty much all queer people can be called into some employer's room, and they can legally say to you, "You're fired because I don't want to employ queer people." Or that a landlord can through you out for the same reason. This is why trans unemployment and homelessness is endemic around the nation (http://transequality.org/PDFs/Executive_Summary.pdf), with rates double to that of the rest of the population, with workplace harassment at even higher levels, and because it doesn't seem like there's a socialist revolution on the horizon, we need to get laws passed to address discrimination against us.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS
WHERE, IN THIS THREAD, HAVE I ARGUED AGAINST THIS?

I am saying that MOVEMENTS fix this not politicians

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:38

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS
WHERE, IN THIS THREAD, HAVE I ARGUED AGAINST THIS?

I am saying that MOVEMENTS fix this not politicians

Politicians don't "fix" it, you're right, but it's significantly more likely for liberals to vote with these movements than against them; that's why I think it's prudent to vote for them.

Bostana

29th January 2014, 02:39

I don't prefer voting to revolutionary action as far as class conflict goes, because voting won't take away capitalism or imperialism. It will just give you liberal capitalism or conservative capitalism. The former is better for people right now until enough of the populace becomes class conscious and organizes in sufficiently large numbers against the bourgeois to seize the means of production.

Boycotting the presidential vote is a more revolutionary than voting for one. I know that may be hear to believe but not supporting bourgeois is better than compared to supporting bourgeois. And yes if you vote that basically mean imperialism is okayed by you and normalizes it. So there is such a thing as a capitalism less evil than capitalism. Sorry but in a case like this, it is black and white. Democrats empower the bourgeoisie I don't what make you think they don't and what makes you think democrats, who support capitalism and give tax breaks to corporations, help the worker?

EDIT:
Wait is the manifester the one who debates on a mass scale, a mass debater if you will?

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 02:43

Politicians don't "fix" it, you're right, but it's significantly more likely for liberals to vote with these movements than against them; that's why I think it's prudent to vote for them.
again, so do you genuinely think these reforms would not have passed had democrats not been in charge?

TheCommunistManifestor

29th January 2014, 02:44

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:47

Boycotting the presidential vote is a more revolutionary than voting for one.

Again, voter turnout is so suppressed and the revolutionary left so small at the moment that "boycotting" the presidential vote is pretty much not noticeable.

I know that may be hear to believe but not supporting bourgeois is better than compared to supporting bourgeois.

The bourgeois don't need your votes, they'll have power no matter who you vote for, so I don't think you're "supporting" them through doing so.

And yes if you vote that basically mean imperialism is okayed by you and normalizes it. So there is such a thing as a capitalism less evil than capitalism.

Where are these non-imperialist capitalists at on the ballot? And how is not voting for one imperialist capitalist or another going to change their hold on power?

Sorry but in a case like this, it is black and white. Democrats empower the bourgeoisie

I think you have that backwards. The bourgeois give power to the major parties, but the bourgeois are divided when it comes to liberalism vs conservatism, which is where the voters and yes, active movements, come in.

I don't what make you think they don't and what makes you think democrats, who support capitalism and give tax breaks to corporations, help the worker?

They're better for people than conservatives because liberals (mind you, some Democrats are conservatives, such as Obama or Clinton), as people, are often more likely to be consciously against screwing people over through transphobia, homophobia, patriarchy, and yes, they're not as consistently anti-union.

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 02:47

I think we can both agree on both parties being "evil" we just disagree on if they are equally "evil". Since i my opinion has not been changed and i haven't changed anyone elses opinion, i am just going to resign to creeping on the remaining arguements going on.
1. I don't regard them as being "evil." They're people working in their interests (or perceived interest). Recognize them as such.
2. Thanks for telling us

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 02:48

again, so do you genuinely think these reforms would not have passed had democrats not been in charge?

That's what the maps and voting records available to me suggests. Liberals are consistently more responsive to leftist movements and advocacy.

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 02:56

That's what the maps and voting records available to me suggests. Liberals are consistently more responsive to leftist movements and advocacy.
this reflects within the state a change of movements you twit
god im done. i cant do this.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 03:08

this reflects within the state a change of movements you twit

Disagreeing with me doesn't really make it okay to be rude.

Furthermore, this view is simply incorrect. Liberals aren't as committed to traditionalism because they never make any promise to their constituents that they are. So when the public begins to shift attitudes on a given issue because of a strong leftist movement in favor of one issue or another, they can feel free to shift their opinions in the face of the on-going situation. Conservatives on the other hand, are elected with a commitment to maintaining or restoring the status quo, which is against any change that might be necessary and advocated for.

So when you have a large group of people saying, "we need housing and employment anti-discrimination laws for queer people!", conservatives are more likely to grumble and complain that there weren't any such laws when they were a kid, while liberals are willing to act sanctimonious and paternalistic and pretend that they're better people and that this is aaall reflective of progressive historical change (which is a myth, of course).

Just look at the timetable for the passage of these laws versus public opinion about them, and especially look at trends in opinions with an ideological breakdown. Liberals will usually be ahead of the curve because changing their views in the light of "new information" (significant organization and advocacy) is a part of their worldview.

Bostana

29th January 2014, 03:12

Again, voter turnout is so suppressed and the revolutionary left so small at the moment that "boycotting" the presidential vote is pretty much not noticeable.
The majority of Americans already don't vote. It has nothing to do with being part of the left but refusing let them now you ok their support of their crimes.

he bourgeois don't need your votes, they'll have power no matter who you vote for, so I don't think you're "supporting" them through doing so.
I don't get that logic. "Hey man they'll be in power either way so let's just vote anyways" It's fucking stupid

Where are these non-imperialist capitalists at on the ballot? And how is not voting for one imperialist capitalist or another going to change their hold on power?
This right here proves you can't comprehend what I said. The point is to not vote not give the ok to imperialism liberalism or capitalism. And not voting is way better than fucking voting and supporting capitalism. HOw many times do I have to repeat myself?

I think you have that backwards. The bourgeois give power to the major parties, but the bourgeois are divided when it comes to liberalism vs conservatism, which is where the voters and yes, active movements, come in.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Someone get Raqif, let him know that we have someone who thinks liberals are ok.

god im done. i cant do this.

I'm with reymus I can't argue with liberals

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 03:15

The majority of Americans already don't vote. It has nothing to do with being part of the left but refusing let them now you ok their support of their crimes.

I don't get that logic. "Hey man they'll be in power either way so let's just vote anyways" It's fucking stupid

No it's nuanced. Capitalists will be in power no matter how you vote, but you're either going to conservatives and liberals. As a leftist, I think liberals are better for most people than conservatives, even if both will be obstacles to the revolution (some more than others).

This right here proves you can't comprehend what I said. The point is to not vote not give the ok to imperialism liberalism or capitalism. And not voting is way better than fucking voting and supporting capitalism. HOw many times do I have to repeat myself?

But it's a secret ballot, not a public endorsement, so I'm not sure of your point here.

Remus Bleys

29th January 2014, 03:21

You have yet to prove how these liberals being elected are better. Ffs Obama initially opposed same sex marriage.
Quit being so liberal

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 03:26

You have yet to prove how these liberals being elected are better. Ffs Obama initially opposed same sex marriage.
Quit being so liberal

Quit failing to notice all of the differences I've already said numerous times while claiming I haven't proven anything.

And Obama is a conservative, even liberals know it (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Is_Obama_really_a_lefty%3F), and I don't think he's relevant to this conversation because I'm principally arguing for provisionally voting in leftist state legislatures (although the president can be important because of the veto power, again). Also one counterexample does not a pattern make.

FSL

29th January 2014, 16:21

Immediate transition to Communism will be difficult, and the general public won't buy into or accept it.

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands." -- Nikita Khrushchev

Khrushchev apparently said something like that, but he has a point. Even Marx said it himself. The road to communism has different steps and turns, it can't be achieved immediately.

God, for real? What's next, people wondering whether there is in fact a prince in Nigeria wanting to give them his money?

Of course he never said that, that's just some crazy right wing myth.
And voting for someone implies he's good, even if you consider him the "lesser evil".
Fascism is a policy capitalism adopts when it sees fitting. You support a "liberal" today, you're strengthening capitalism and paving the way to tomorrow's fascism.

Also, Romney wasn't a fascist. If Romney was a fascist, then every republican is a fascist and every democrat is the "lesser evil" and people in the US should be voting for the democratic candidate until the end of time.

Yeah, that will help.

FSL

29th January 2014, 16:26

No it's nuanced. Capitalists will be in power no matter how you vote, but you're either going to conservatives and liberals. As a leftist, I think liberals are better for most people than conservatives, even if both will be obstacles to the revolution (some more than others).

But it's a secret ballot, not a public endorsement, so I'm not sure of your point here.

The endorsement in the end is public because the percentages of support are announced. No one might know that the support comes from you but everyone will know that the support is there.

I have a different idea. Since you want to vote why not vote for someone with similar ideas?
Why not treat elections as Marx and Engels meant for them to be treated? As evidence of the working class' maturity (or lack of it anyway).

In fact, by doing so you get to help spread these ideas since people talk -and listen- more about politics around that time. Prime opportunity then.

Or you could do the easier thing and voting for the democrat or the labour or the socialist candidate depending on where you live. But tell me, why are they better?

FSL

29th January 2014, 16:37

They're better for people than conservatives because liberals (mind you, some Democrats are conservatives, such as Obama or Clinton), as people, are often more likely to be consciously against screwing people over through transphobia, homophobia, patriarchy, and yes, they're not as consistently anti-union.
Funny how the two democrats elected presidents in the past 35 years became "conservatives".
Maybe it's the nature of their job, you know, heading a capitalist state that makes them like that?

What would a republican president do? Execute the gays? Maybe not let them get married? Is marriage for gay people legal in all of the US? Because it sure isn't in most states where center-left/progressive parties formed the governments.

And really, is that a big thing? Does it question the interests of the rulling class?
Imagine that, there is a republican president and there are say 5 million people protesting and asking for legal gay marriage. He'll deny it? His voters might be unhappy but it really isn't such a huge issue for him, it really isn't such a huge issue for anyone, even among those that disagree.

If gay people had something similar to the civil rights movement then the discrimination against them would stop much faster compared to waiting for a progressive president to pass a law.
They'd make the president pass the law.

So the solution to that is an active movement, not vain hopes.
And the union thing, that's even worse. Democrats are consistently anti-union, they are consistently destroying them from within. Are you familiar at all with Europe? Do you know what great role the equivalent of democrats in the various countries play in the unions? Do you know where this has led the unions?
They are basically toothless tigers, just a way to secure obedience from workers. Unions don't have to be busted, they can be controlled as well.

This is what you don't understand. Democrats might use different rhetoric from the republicans, might use different methods. But the aims are identical.

Sabot Cat

29th January 2014, 21:43

The endorsement in the end is public because the percentages of support are announced. No one might know that the support comes from you but everyone will know that the support is there.

I have a different idea. Since you want to vote why not vote for someone with similar ideas?
Why not treat elections as Marx and Engels meant for them to be treated? As evidence of the working class' maturity (or lack of it anyway).

In fact, by doing so you get to help spread these ideas since people talk -and listen- more about politics around that time. Prime opportunity then.

You may be surprised by this, but I think you have good points here.

I actually think it would be a good idea if we infiltrated liberal primaries and voted in socialists; as nice of an idea as that is though, I have yet to see a communist electoral party with viability in a general election because these elections are largely theaters of liberal bourgeois versus conservative bourgeois ideologies; the liberation of the proletariat isn't done at the ballot box.

Nonetheless, I'm very much in favor of the idea of voting for a socialist candidate to show solidarity, if I'm not acting as a spoiler in service of conservatives. If we had an Alternative Vote scheme I would definitely check 1) Anti-Capitalist Party 2) Second Anti-Capitalist Party 3)Liberals. But in the context of First Past the Post voting systems, it's difficult to build up support in this way. Especially when there are no Anti-Capitalist candidates on the ballots anyway.

Or you could do the easier thing and voting for the democrat or the labour or the socialist candidate depending on where you live. But tell me, why are they better?

(Liberal) Democrats are more willing to pass or maintain anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing. (Liberal) Democrats are less likely to pass right-to-work laws. These are both issues important enough to me to vote on.

Funny how the two democrats elected presidents in the past 35 years became "conservatives".
Maybe it's the nature of their job, you know, heading a capitalist state that makes them like that?

I think the presidency is a pretty conservative position in the hierarchy, yes.

What would a republican president do? Execute the gays? Maybe not let them get married?

Well, they would veto any slightly leftist legislation, which is kind of important in some cases.

Is marriage for gay people legal in all of the US?

No.

Because it sure isn't in most states where center-left/progressive parties formed the governments.

http://marriageequalityusa.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/image-1.jpg%3Fw%3D640%26h%3D430%26crop%3D1

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pkLP4-sMz_E/UtLdxSyi1kI/AAAAAAAAJmU/iakScx2W0T4/s1600/StatePartyControlJan2014.png

http://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/GovernmentAffairsNews/HRIssuesUpdatee-Newsletter/PublishingImages/New%20Picture%20(31).png

Democrat controlled legislatures consistently favor same-sex marriage over Republicans, if that's the issue you're concerned most with.

And really, is that a big thing? Does it question the interests of the rulling class?
Imagine that, there is a republican president and there are say 5 million people protesting and asking for legal gay marriage. He'll deny it? His voters might be unhappy but it really isn't such a huge issue for him, it really isn't such a huge issue for anyone, even among those that disagree.

If gay people had something similar to the civil rights movement then the discrimination against them would stop much faster compared to waiting for a progressive president to pass a law.
They'd make the president pass the law.

So the solution to that is an active movement, not vain hopes.

Presidents don't pass laws, and I'm not saying to wait for a president or legislature to save anyone. I'm saying to block conservatives from any office of government you possibly can because they're consistently worse for people and less responsive to advocacy, while working and organizing against the capitalist order. You can do both. It only takes less than a day to vote. A day you might've spent with your friends or family or debating on forums, but probably not revolutionary causes.

And the union thing, that's even worse. Democrats are consistently anti-union, they are consistently destroying them from within. Are you familiar at all with Europe? Do you know what great role the equivalent of democrats in the various countries play in the unions? Do you know where this has led the unions?
They are basically toothless tigers, just a way to secure obedience from workers. Unions don't have to be busted, they can be controlled as well.

Republicans are much more likely to pass "right-to-work" laws, and yes neither one is Communist. Neither one is Revolutionary. I realize this. Democrats are liberal, capitalist-appeasing, paternalistic, sanctimonious, imperialistic shits. We shouldn't expect them to carry out our class interests. But the Republicans are worse in every single way, and if you really want a good feel for the difference, actually talk to people who affiliate one way or another. There's a qualitative difference in ideologies and cultures and how they impact people's lives.

This is what you don't understand. Democrats might use different rhetoric from the republicans, might use different methods. But the aims are identical.

Again, as I've been saying and trying to support with evidence as best as possible, one is consistently worse for people than the other.

Ele'ill

30th January 2014, 01:13

Again, as I've been saying and trying to support with evidence as best as possible, one is consistently worse for people than the other.

I don't remember the exact example you gave and it is a general thing people say as an argument in favor of voting but a law being allegedly passed (promised to be passed by some grubby loser in a suit who probably won't follow through or face extreme hurdles and fail completely) to 'make businesses be more fair' is a fucking joke. If you've ever worked more than a year in your life and aren't a scab, snitch, or work place do-gooder, or at least have a slight murmur in the back of your mind saying 'wow we are completely powerless and it's almost like it's on purpose' you'd know that private ownership finds a way to do what ever it fucking wants to and it is only at those moments when folks realize there is nothing to negotiate only things to take that positive things happen without the excess baggage and compromise associated with playing the enemy's game.

PhoenixAsh

30th January 2014, 01:24

Voting only makes sense in a two party system when considering certain spear point topics....like abortion legislation/gay marriage or when you want a bridge to be build or not. It will however not change anything in the grander scheme of things.

Voting however does make more sense in a multi-party system with a whole spectrum of parties that can change the outcome of policy dramatically.

That said...there is no way in which fabianism or social democratic principles will ever change the system. So in that respect...voting will only change the puppet master.

For the record...I cast blank votes.

Sabot Cat

30th January 2014, 20:52

I don't remember the exact example you gave and it is a general thing people say as an argument in favor of voting but a law being allegedly passed (promised to be passed by some grubby loser in a suit who probably won't follow through or face extreme hurdles and fail completely) to 'make businesses be more fair' is a fucking joke.

The foremost issue at my mind is expanding the prohibition of housing and employment discrimination for queer people, not to mention doing something about the homeless shelters that turn away trans women and trans men based on cissexist policies, or the legality of conversion therapy, etc. (More on the housing issue for trans people: http://transequality.org/Issues/homelessness.html)

If you've ever worked more than a year in your life and aren't a scab, snitch, or work place do-gooder, or at least have a slight murmur in the back of your mind saying 'wow we are completely powerless and it's almost like it's on purpose' you'd know that private ownership finds a way to do what ever it fucking wants to and it is only at those moments when folks realize there is nothing to negotiate only things to take that positive things happen without the excess baggage and compromise associated with playing the enemy's game.

Yes, one does not change ownership of the means of production through the ballot box; liberals and/or Democrats don't have our class interests in mind, etc.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

30th January 2014, 21:27

Sabot Cat

30th January 2014, 21:53

And this would be achieved through voting? :confused:

The American bourgeois have ingrained their reactionary ideology all throughout the working class, and most workers don't even see a revolution as an option on the table. It's imperative that communists help make other people more aware of how the yoke of class-based stratification can be cast off, but this is work that will take many decades. So if it isn't getting done by a revolution anytime soon, at least not in the United States, I don't see the harm in trying to push for it by a vote when it will likely help people. Nonetheless, direct action is imperative in applying pressure to get these bourgeois politicians in passing anything like this, so it will take revolutionary tactics just to see marginal reforms. However, in so doing, we can build up a network of class conscious, direct action protesters and advocates who will be critical for future conflicts.

Remus Bleys

30th January 2014, 23:21

Hey rose I could easily counter your claptrap about getting consciousness raised via Parliament (well that's unfair you think it through the Democrats. Because when the Democrats rule we become more class conscious rofl) or the irony of saying we are ingrained with reactionary ideology we need to shake and then go on supporting Parliament.
But I'm tired of talking with you so here (can't believe no one else linked this)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/ch03.htm

Sabot Cat

30th January 2014, 23:23

Hey rose I could easily counter your claptrap about getting consciousness raised via Parliament

Oh, wow. I said that? Where? Where did I say that? I wasn't aware that I said that members of the national legislature raise class consciousness. I'm pretty sure I said it was through people engaging in revolutionary tactics that we cultivate the kind of organizational finesse necessary for a wider proletarian revolution and get provisional piecemeal reforms on certain immediate concerns through until we reach some sort of critical mass. But hey, have fun beating up that strawman until the cows come home.

Remus Bleys

30th January 2014, 23:30

You literally think voting for the Democrats is compatible with revolutionary tactics. Sorry I wasnt as nuanced about your liberalism as you are.
Get the iww off your org list. You obviously aren't a member. Cpusa maybe. I have no affiliations nor really endorse or even care about the iww but it's rather offensive to you know, actual anarchists. Not to mention the absurdity of an anarchist having a quote favorable towards general elections in their sig.

Lily Briscoe

30th January 2014, 23:36

Get the iww off your org list. You obviously aren't a member. Cpusa maybe. I have no affiliations nor really endorse or even care about the iww but it's rather offensive to you know, actual anarchists. Not to mention the absurdity of an anarchist having a quote favorable towards general elections in their sig.
There are plenty of people in the IWW with this sort of politics.

Remus Bleys

30th January 2014, 23:39

There are plenty of people in the IWW with this sort of politics.
Name a couple. Chomsky doesn't count (not real sure why thry ley him in there)

Sabot Cat

30th January 2014, 23:41

You literally think voting for the Democrats is compatible with revolutionary tactics.

Democrats are more likely to be receptive of leftist political activity, and yes, they are compatible in certain instances, as this wedding of revolutionary tactics and strategic voting was instrumental for the Civil Rights Movement.

Sorry I wasnt as nuanced about your liberalism as you are.

On what grounds do you assert that I'm a liberal? As I've said before, name calling isn't a great way to convince someone else of your ideas.

Get the iww off your org list. You obviously aren't a member. Cpusa maybe.

More ad hominem argumentation tactics, not very convincing, etc.

I have no affiliations nor really endorse or even care about the iww but it's rather offensive to you know, actual anarchists. Not to mention the absurdity of an anarchist having a quote favorable towards general elections in their sig.

We can't have democratic processes in autonomous workers' organizations? I'm not sure how the general election of recallable delegates is a breach of anarchist principles, but okay.

Sabot Cat

30th January 2014, 23:46

Name a couple. Chomsky doesn't count (not real sure why thry ley him in there)

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, but she'll probably be subject to your no-true-scotsman stance on an organization you don't even belong to.

Or Mary Harris Jones, who confounded the IWW and involved herself in electoral socialist parties. Or Eugene V. Debs. Or Bill Haywood, Daniel DeLeon, and Frank Bohn. Political engagement and IWW membership are not mutually exclusive.

Lily Briscoe

30th January 2014, 23:49

Name a couple. Chomsky doesn't count (not real sure why thry ley him in there)
Er.. I'm not talking about political celebrities or something if that's what you're thinking (although the fact that Chomsky is a member really should tell you something about the criteria for membership). The IWW is not a politically homogenous organization, though; people in it have varying views about a lot of things.

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 00:06

I'm going to level with you all though: I haven't voted for anyone or anything yet. It's not too late, as it were. Do any of you have a convincing argument that the benefits of blocking conservatives from office are not worth the detriment of anonymously and marginally contributing to the legitimacy of the bourgeois politicians? I'm not committed to the Democratic Party; they were the ones who ruthlessly crushed the IWW and most revolutionary leftist activity going on about a century ago, after all. But I have not been convinced by the evidence presented to abstain from voting against the more reactionary party.

Remus Bleys

31st January 2014, 00:28

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 00:48

As a rule, large capitalists are Republicans and small capitalists are Democrats, but workingmen must remember that they are all capitalists, and that the many small ones, like the fewer large ones, are all politically supporting their class interests, and this is always and everywhere the capitalist class. - Debs

I'm not sure what you are taking about there rose.

I'm saying that IWW and electoral participation are not mutually exclusive, and I think Debs' quote is spot on.

Rose I call you a liberal because you want to fight for liberal candidates (you have made the liberal conservative distinction several times now).

You call me a liberal because I acknowledge a difference exists? That there are different consequences for each one being in power? I don't think it rational to assert that I believe a certain political ideology on the basis of not denying certain facts.

And if you don't think these are the facts, steer me right. I don't want to believe in wrong things. I don't want the proletariat subjugated. We have similar goals, I'm just not convinced of all of your opinions, and I don't think you've made good arguments for them.

You are a liberal. This isn't even cwi stuff. There can be no debate about this you are literally supporting Democrats.

I'm fairly certain that I've condemned them several times and noted that it was unfortunate that we have a winner-take-all system, wherein if you aren't voting for the liberals, you're voting for the conservatives (roughly speaking).

The Civil rights movements death was when capital had seized it, forcing it to become the mere play toy of a few politicians who would throw scraps instead of being a real movement that would force certain real effects, real gains, and perhaps real change

I think they did make real changes in people's lives, and I'm fairly certain that the reform achieved through the Civil Rights Movement had made this society better.

(via uniting the class and commencing a revolution - wait you think revolution is when Hawaii becomes controlled by the Democrats)

It was a significant workers's struggle using revolutionary tactics, including general strikes, among workers who successfully rolled back the influence of the five biggest sugar plantation companies in the state (the Big Five) that were essentially using the Hawaiians as serfs.

Here's a lovely Camatte work http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/demyst.htm

<sincerity>Interesting, thanks for sharing it. Jacques never fails at giving one some good things to think about.</sincerity>

Remus Bleys

31st January 2014, 01:02

So you agree with Debs yet support Democrats... It follows from this that you openly support capitalism.
Lol we have the same goal? I bet you envision communism add some form of a worker corporative. It would follow from your idea that Democrats are progressive.
A difference does not exist of it did it would be so minor add to be null. You think capitalism can alleviates racism? I mean I would assume you do because you think that when politicians took over the Civil rights movement that it was still somehow a militant movement. getting politicians to do shit instead of taking it ourselves is a highly bourgeois-liberal idea. I mean my god, Hawaii is still a class society riddled with wage slaves. Did you even read Gorter's Open Letter?

Ele'ill

31st January 2014, 01:23

The foremost issue at my mind is expanding the prohibition of housing and employment discrimination for queer people, not to mention doing something about the homeless shelters that turn away trans women and trans men based on cissexist policies, or the legality of conversion therapy, etc. (More on the housing issue for trans people: http://transequality.org/Issues/homelessness.html) Yes, one does not change ownership of the means of production through the ballot box; liberals and/or Democrats don't have our class interests in mind, etc.

Just like every other fair employment, fair workplace policy, cop regulating, fair housing, low income housing, etc.. law or 'initiative' that gets passed.

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 01:32

So you agree with Debs yet support Democrats... It follows from this that you openly support capitalism.

That's kind of a non-sequitur.

Lol we have the same goal? I bet you envision communism add some form of a worker corporative. It would follow from your idea that Democrats are progressive.

As is this...

A difference does not exist of it did it would be so minor add to be null.

That difference you write off as "minor" is incredibly important to me personally.

You think capitalism can alleviates racism?

Only the abolition of the artificial scarcity enforced by the bourgeois can do that. I never claimed otherwise.

I mean I would assume you do because you think that when politicians took over the Civil rights movement that it was still somehow a militant movement.

There were consequential militant elements within it, certainly; it was also revolutionary through and through, but I know we don't really agree in semantics there.

getting politicians to do shit instead of taking it ourselves is a highly bourgeois-liberal idea.

I don't think the revolutionary left in the United States has the numbers to create enough trans-inclusive homeless shelters and neighborhoods to accommodate everyone who's turned away, let alone seize the means of production and enforce inclusion from the revolutionary state.

I mean my god, Hawaii is still a class society riddled with wage slaves.

Yes, it wasn't a complete victory on part of the proletariat.

Did you even read Gorter's Open Letter?

Reading isn't agreeing, unfortunately, although I don't recall it very well.

Bostana

31st January 2014, 01:59

If you believe in Liberal policies and are taken with the idea that Liberals want nothing but the best for the working class than you have fallen deep victim to the media and capitalist propaganda in the United States. Voting for representatives does not ensure the progress of queer rights. (Considering your whole argument for your romanticism with liberals is because they "Support" queer rights. The only reason queer rights are here at all is because of queer protesters and movements. politicians, democrat or republican, didn't give a damn about homosexual rights. I couldn't imagine how far we would get if people like everyone just settled for the lesser evil and counted on politicians you voted for to make a change.

And just because the left isn't big the the United States doesn't mean we fucking quit and say, "Oh well, let's become democrats." You promote the left to gain popularity you don't promote the left by supporting capitalist politicians. Creating trans-inclusive homeless shelters falls more in the lines of being decent human beings than being part of the left anyways so don't make that argument a fetish.

I'm waiting for Raqif to find out there's a liberal here

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 02:16

If you believe in Liberal policies and are taken with the idea that Liberals want nothing but the best for the working class

I've said the direct opposite several times now.

than you have fallen deep victim to the media and capitalist propaganda in the United States.

Glad I dodged that bullet.

Voting for representatives does not ensure the progress of queer rights. (Considering your whole argument for your romanticism with liberals is because they "Support" queer rights. The only reason queer rights are here at all is because of queer protesters and movements. politicians, democrat or republican, didn't give a damn about homosexual rights.

Eyup, as I've acknowledged. It's important for us to organize and protest and engage in direct action.

I couldn't imagine how far we would get if people like everyone just settled for the lesser evil and counted on politicians you voted for to make a change.

Indeed, you can't count on politicians to do that; although some politicians are more willing to change in the face of opposition, especially those who are more left-wing than the other ones, if only slightly.

And just because the left isn't big the the United States doesn't mean we fucking quit and say, "Oh well, let's become democrats."

I didn't say to quit, or to become Democrats, I said to vote prudently and strategically.

You promote the left to gain popularity you don't promote the left by supporting capitalist politicians.

"You promote the left to gain popularity"? What?

Creating trans-inclusive homeless shelters falls more in the lines of being decent human beings than being part of the left anyways so don't make that argument a fetish.

I agree, but only the liberals are showing any willingness to do this kind of shit or acknowledge trans people as people. Is that bar low? Yes. Are liberals not reflective of my class interests or my ideology as I have to repeat over and over (I'm not doing it again)? Yes. But again, this is a winner take all system, and the conservatives are worse.

I'm waiting for Raqif to find out there's a liberal here

You've already said that. For one thing, I'm not a liberal, and another thing, I've verbally spared with him several times already.

Bostana

31st January 2014, 02:42

I've said the direct opposite several times now.
Yet you still refuse not to vote because yo believe liberal policies are good for the worker class? And if you don't believe this than why vote at all? You're contradicting yourself

Glad I dodged that bullet.
Yeah we can tell you dodged the bullet by the way you vote Democrat

]Eyup, as I've acknowledged. It's important for us to organize and protest and engage in direct action.
Voting for politicians is not organization it is submitting to bourgeois for them to handle our rights.

Indeed, you can't count on politicians to do that; although some politicians are more willing to change in the face of opposition, especially those who are more left-wing than the other ones, if only slightly.
There are no left-wing politicians in the legislative.

I didn't say to quit, or to become Democrats, I said to vote prudently and strategically.
And how strategic is it to vote for a bourgeois politician that supports capitalism? You constantly contradict yourself because you're so bent on liberals being the lesser evil and yet liberals and conservatives are exactly the same.

"You promote the left to gain popularity"? What?
You promote the left for it to gain popularity and you don't promote the left by voting.

I agree, but only the liberals are showing any willingness to do this kind of shit or acknowledge trans people as people. Is that bar low? Yes. Are liberals not reflective of my class interests or my ideology as I have to repeat over and over (I'm not doing it again)? Yes. But again, this is a winner take all system, and the conservatives are worse.
How the fuck in anyway does the positive out way the whopping negative? Wow some liberals support some queer rights. Ring the fucking bells. They also promote U.S. and Israeli Imperialism, bourgeois class supremacy, and a capitalist society but hey let's just forget that shit because they promote queer rights. We as the organized worker can count on ourselves to enforce our will on the bourgeois so let's just give them power so that way they can slowly gives us a small amount of the queers rights we asked for. Yeah why not sounds genius! See how you contradict yourself? Despite this you're still gonna deny everything repeat yourself in a different form and cling to the idiotic notion of the lesser evil.

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 02:53

Yet you still refuse not to vote because yo believe liberal policies are good for the worker class?

Better for the working class than conservative policies. Not good.

And if you don't believe this than why vote at all? You're contradicting yourself

Because some people can be less bad for the working class than others.

Yeah we can tell you dodged the bullet by the way you vote Democrat

I haven't voted for anything yet, but no one has presented a good reason why not to counter to my good reasons for doing so.

Voting for politicians is not organization it is submitting to bourgeois for them to handle our rights.

I don't operate on "rights" politics, and we already "submit" to the bourgeois. They already have control whether you vote or not.

There are no left-wing politicians in the legislative.

More left-wing.

And how strategic is it to vote for a bourgeois politician that supports capitalism? You constantly contradict yourself because you're so bent on liberals being the lesser evil and yet liberals and conservatives are exactly the same.

I've explained this already. Everything you're saying I've already explained.

Like, yes, duh, they all support capitalism. But which one is going to be worse for us?

You promote the left for it to gain popularity and you don't promote the left by voting.

Okay...? What does this have to do with anything?

How the fuck in anyway does the positive out way the whopping negative? Wow some liberals support some queer rights. Ring the fucking bells. They also promote U.S. and Israeli Imperialism, bourgeois class supremacy, and a capitalist society but hey let's just forget that shit because they promote queer rights.

The other party supports all of that too, and one of the two is going to win in the current political climate, unfortunately.

We as the organized worker can count on ourselves to enforce our will on the bourgeois so let's just give them power so that way they can slowly gives us a small amount of the queers rights we asked for.

The bourgeois are already the ones with the power. You're not denying them any by not voting, which is my entire reason I don't buy everyone's opposition to tactical voting.

Yeah why not sounds genius! See how you contradict yourself? Despite this you're still gonna deny everything repeat yourself in a different form and cling to the idiotic notion of the lesser evil.

I don't know, it'd be nice if I didn't think it irresponsible to not block conservatives in every way possible. I just haven't been convinced.

Thanatos

31st January 2014, 11:46

The Jay

31st January 2014, 12:33

Five Year Plan

31st January 2014, 16:13

DOOM

31st January 2014, 20:14

I think it's important to vote on shit like this:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/switzerland-upcoming-initiative-t186038/index.html?t=186038
Otherwise, I don't believe voting for different parties will change anything, so i oppose this specifically

Bostana

31st January 2014, 21:30

Better for the working class than conservative policies. Not good.
Oh well that makes since for the working class. Even if neither are good for them will just vote for the one that are less worse. I mean they're better for the workers because they promote corporations, capitalism, Imperialism, and bourgeois control because that is better for the workers :rolleyes:

Because some people can be less bad for the working class than others.
Not in a world like this. It's a pretty romantic idea to cling to, as I said before, to believe that any politician gives a fuck about the working class. But they don't. Liberal or Conservative. It's not gonna change. Neither is better or worse. They're both the same

I haven't voted for anything yet, but no one has presented a good reason why not to counter to my good reasons for doing so.
Or your just stuck to the idea that politicians can make things better.

More left-wing.
not at all left-wing

I've explained this already. Everything you're saying I've already explained.

Like, yes, duh, they all support capitalism. But which one is going to be worse for us?
You haven't explained anything. You're just clinging to the lesser evil nothing every middle aged parent tells their kid

Okay...? What does this have to do with anything?
I'm starting to think you can't read. And you're just skimming through what i write :glare:

The other party supports all of that too, and one of the two is going to win in the current political climate, unfortunately.
Yes that's the fucking point! Why support either by voting!

which is my entire reason I don't buy everyone's opposition to tactical voting.
Hahaha tactical voting? :lol: That's how you see it? tactical? whats so tactical about supporting capitalism? because liberals are less worse? How? Because they support welfare while simultaneously supports the corporations that put those people on welfare.? Because it took 50 years for 6 states to allow gay marrige? Is this the lesser evil?

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 21:52

Voting is important, since it gives us a chance to bring socialism into the mainstream in small doses. Step by step, little by little, that's all one can do at this stage. Of course, people are free to start a revolution all at once. Let's see how that turns out.:rolleyes:

It seems as though you're proposing to just carefully sneak the means of production to the proletariat in hopes that the bourgeois won't notice. Unfortunately, whether it's India or the United States, those who control the entire political system are the owners of capital, who only favor the republican form of government when they know that they can maintain control of it. Through the media and through the power inherent to their position, the bourgeois can atomize class consciousness and working class solidarity astoundingly fast, making reformism a rather Sisyphean ideology.

No, the only way we can deprecate the power of the bourgeois is through revolutionary means. The class-conscious proletariat must command the attention of those around us through protest and demonstration, while utilizing our small but crucial power of labor in a general strike. These revolutionaries can then galvanize a movement of the majority to seize the means of production, evaporating the perceived legitimacy of the bourgeois' regime as well as the foundation of its rule.

I agree that there are immediate issues that can only be assessed through voting until that critical mass can be achieved. Nonetheless, the possibility of a proletarian revolution is real enough not to shrug off, and in light of the subjugation of the majority of humanity by capitalists, it must be striven for.

Sabot Cat

31st January 2014, 23:02

I'm starting to think you can't read. And you're just skimming through what i write :glare:

I assure you that I'm not just skimming, but so I don't just copy-paste what I've already said, here is my argument distilled:

(1) Both parties are composed of capitalists.
(2) Voting for one or the other does not empower capitalists as a class because their locus of control lies in owning the means of production, not in elected office.
(3) Nonetheless, one is decidedly worse than the other if the laws they pass and policies they keep and the rhetoric they spew are any indication.
(4) Thus voting for one of the capitalist parties has more of a benefit than not voting at all or voting for a more ideologically compatible party without electoral viability if one is even offered. However, if it's an Alternative Vote system or anything akin to it, the latter becomes less of an issue.

Am I understanding correctly that number three is the more contentious premise I'm advancing?

Let's do a thought experiment asking ourselves, "excluding Independents and non-voters, what if only Democrats or only Republicans voted on certain bills?"

The Violence Against Women Act (extension): The Democratic Senate would have approved this unanimously [53-0] while the Republican Senate would do so narrowly [23-22] The Democratic House of Representatives would have passed this unanimously as well [199-0] but the Republican House of Representatives would have failed to pass it [87-138].

The "reasons" why conservatives opposed it are that they didn't want it to cover same-sex couples, or allow immigrants who are subject to abuse to claim U-Visas. This bill includes funding for rape crisis centers and hotlines, legal aid for those subject to domestic abuse, and the federal rape shield law which prevents defense lawyers in rape cases from extensively cross-examining the victim and questioning them about their sexual history.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act: Even though Clinton failed to veto this, which he should have, this ax to welfare wasn't universally beloved by liberals. Although the Democratic Senate would have been deadlocked [23-23], and the Republican Senate would pass it [51-1], the Democratic House of Representatives would have rejected this overwhelmingly [4-164], while the Republican House of Representatives would pass it as they did in real life [221-4].

What were the effects? Well, I believe that welfare is a crucial way of making the bourgeois have less direct control over the proletariat because the would-be worker can afford to live without them, allowing them to negotiate for better wages and engage in more strike actions.

But besides that, this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/welfare-limits-left-poor-adrift-as-recession-hit.html?_r=0) illuminates some things:

"But the number of very poor families appears to be growing. Pamela Loprest and Austin Nichols, researchers at the Urban Institute, found that one in four low-income single mothers nationwide — about 1.5 million — are jobless and without cash aid. That is twice the rate the researchers found under the old welfare law. More than 40 percent remain that way for more than a year, and many have mental or physical disabilities, sick children or problems with domestic violence."

And it's not only Congress where there's an important difference between conservatives and liberals, but the presidency, if only because of their power to appoint justices and the major cases they often decide there.

Yes, liberals are not communists. They aren't socialists, they aren't revolutionaries, and they don't have proletarian liberation on their list of things to do. But in every situation where liberals and conservatives vote differently, conservatives often do the most damage.

Ele'ill

1st February 2014, 01:14

so what kind of laws are helpful

Sinister Intents

1st February 2014, 01:23

so what kind of laws are helpful

I would say none. To me laws legalize the actions of the state and are tools of class rule rather than the protective things people think they are. Laws are bullshit.

Ele'ill

1st February 2014, 01:31

I meant from Red Rose's perspective here since they are all about voting for folks to make reforms through law

Sinister Intents

1st February 2014, 01:32

I meant from Red Rose's perspective here since they are all about voting for folks to make reforms through law

Ahhhh alright, but from what I've said, what can you add or say?

Ele'ill

1st February 2014, 01:36

The same exact things I've posted in this thread

Sabot Cat

1st February 2014, 02:37

so what kind of laws are helpful

I concur with Sinister Intents in saying that the laws are tools of the bourgeois, servicing as a thin veneer of perceived legitimacy for their exploitation and subjugation. Unfortunately, we are going to have to contend with a bourgeois state for the time being, and in that context there are some laws that are more desirable than others. I'm particularly interested in seeing these personally passed: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act, a prohibition of conversion therapy, and immigration reform that isn't watered down and shitty. Outside of that, I believe that it would be beneficial for the revolutionary leftist movement to have an expansion of welfare and universal healthcare to increase proletarian independence from businesses (I realize that they still come from the bourgeois state and thus they don't technically make workers more autonomous but it will overall drive down poverty and give us more room to negotiate), a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and some sort of legislation that shreds right-to-work laws in order to strengthen workers' organizations, and although I don't think the electoral system can be wrestled away from the bourgeois, an anti-capitalist party would have more favorable circumstances if there was an alternative vote system among other things.

Again, I don't think we can reform away the state or a capitalist mode of production. Many of the above proposals could be easily undone by the reactionary Supreme Court, or be consistently under-enforced by the capitalist-collaborationist police or by repeal from a legislature elected during a year where conservatives do especially well. Nonetheless, we can't just let the entire situation get out of hand by abstaining from any participation whatsoever in their systems. There's no reason to make the fight even harder for ourselves now or in the future by letting conservative reactionaries sail right into office.

Ele'ill

1st February 2014, 18:45

I concur with Sinister Intents in saying that the laws are tools of the bourgeois, servicing as a thin veneer of perceived legitimacy for their exploitation and subjugation. Unfortunately, we are going to have to contend with a bourgeois state for the time being, and in that context there are some laws that are more desirable than others.

You are missing the point that the benefit of laws being passed are simply a point of contention being bottlenecked into a deescalated form that the state can manage.

I'm particularly interested in seeing these personally passed: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,As I previously mentioned I don't have any faith at all that this will stop discrimination to any relevant level.

the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act,I don't have any faith at all, with it being 2014, that fair housing acts, amendments, etc.. is a solution.

a prohibition of conversion therapy, and immigration reform that isn't watered down and shitty.

well that's reform for you

Outside of that, I believe that it would be beneficial for the revolutionary leftist movement to have an expansion of welfare and universal healthcare to increase proletarian independence from businesses (I realize that they still come from the bourgeois state and thus they don't technically make workers more autonomous but it will overall drive down poverty and give us more room to negotiate), a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and some sort of legislation that shreds right-to-work laws in order to strengthen workers' organizationsDo you actually think that's why worker's organizations are weak? Do you think maybe they are weak because their praxis in its entirety pivots on this mythical solution of negotiation?

or be consistently under-enforced by the capitalist-collaborationist police or by repeal from a legislature elected during a year where conservatives do especially well.Pretty much what I've been saying and I'll add here (again), regarding employment in particular, it sets parameters for how businesses can avoid getting in trouble while still doing whatever they want.

Per Levy

1st February 2014, 19:17

@red rose: let me tell you the situation in another country than the usa, here in germany do you know which were the worst kind of partys to vote for? the left partys, the social democrats and the greens, cause it was them who slashed the wellfarestate, put more and more pressure on unemployed people, were creating a working poor sector("a low wage sector to help economy") wich means that 25% of working people today are consideret working poor and that number is growing. not to mention lowered the taxes for the rich and corporations and so many other things, the conservatives could easaly build upon those politics.

the few little reforms that didnt hurt large parts of the population were so meaningless that i cant even think of them anymore.

there is no lesser evil, there is only one evil and you wont change that evil or weaken that evil with voting.

Sabot Cat

1st February 2014, 19:18

You are missing the point that the benefit of laws being passed are simply a point of contention being bottlenecked into a deescalated form that the state can manage

Letting these problems fester to (theoretically!) strengthen our movement is not something I can comply with, ethically.

Besides, the ruling class would simply pass the reforms themselves, but in a more staggered, more watered-down, less inclusive and less regular fashion to stymie any revolutionary discontentment.

As I previously mentioned I don't have any faith at all that this will stop discrimination to any relevant level.

I think it will have some impact, and that it will be more positive in its effects than never trying at all.

I don't have any faith at all, with it being 2014, that fair housing acts, amendments, etc.. is a solution.

What do you mean by "it being 2014"?

well that's reform for you

I meant not the DREAM Act, which is watered down even by reformist standards.

Do you actually think that's why worker's organizations are weak? Do you think maybe they are weak because their praxis in its entirety pivots on this mythical solution of negotiation?

I think the legislation hasn't helped, at least.

http://s17.postimg.org/s4c80xdu7/tafthartley.png (http://postimage.org/)

Pretty much what I've been saying and I'll add here (again), regarding employment in particular, it sets parameters for how businesses can avoid getting in trouble while still doing whatever they want.

Giving workers' organizations the ability to build class solidarity and demonstrate themselves as powerful enough to get employers to comply with their demands is an important part of building the trust and organizational finesse necessary for successfully executing a revolution. Nonetheless, I agree generally that the bourgeois will continue to try (and succeed) in limiting our ability to fight until the revolution comes.

Invader Zim

2nd February 2014, 19:57

Voting is pointless. It also adds legitimacy to the process.

If you want to go out and vote, and do so for whatever tactical reason you have, then I'm not going to tell you not to. But I fail to see the point and would rather protest against the system either by joining the masses of others who feel disenfranchised by the existing system and who do not vote - or spoil my ballot in a protest vote.

Queen Mab

2nd February 2014, 21:19

Red Rose: the massive increase in union membership during the Great Depression was organised by the Democrats to integrate the working class into reformist organisations at a time when there was fear of revolution. It was massively successful in this respect, at no time since have trade unions been anywhere close to revolutionary in the US. They even purged the Stalinist CPUSA from their organisations without so much as a whimper.

The function of trade unions is to mediate class struggle. Trying to pursue reforms to strengthen them is counter-revolutionary.

The Pale Blue Dot

4th February 2014, 22:06

Thank you.

Dialectical Wizard

5th February 2014, 20:45

Ele'ill

6th February 2014, 03:03

I always vote for some local ‘radical’ leftist party, without any illusions though. I’m very aware of the nature of a bourgeois democracy, but it’s better than doing nothing.

If you are aware of the nature of a bourgeois election and you are doing it 'without any illusions' than it isn't 'better than doing nothing' it is 'doing nothing'.

I despise these abstract leftists who don't want to touch power because they think it is corrupting, if you can grab power than fucking do it!

This kind of misses the points already discussed in the rest of the thread before your post here but It isn't really abstract it's kind of a main theme

Dialectical Wizard

6th February 2014, 08:28

If you are aware of the nature of a bourgeois election and you are doing it 'without any illusions' than it isn't 'better than doing nothing' it is 'doing nothing'.

If the party represents the interests of the proletariat, then why not?

This kind of misses the points already discussed in the rest of the thread before your post here but It isn't really abstract it's kind of a main theme

Are you one of those infantile leftists? Who’s afraid of power? It’s not only the Stalinists who are a problem within the radical left but also these abstract leftists, who rather be a local marginal communist gang, than to go out there and do something.

Per Levy

6th February 2014, 09:15

Are you one of those infantile leftists? Who’s afraid of power?

cause working class power can be obtained through bourgois elections?

It’s not only the Stalinists who are a problem within the radical left but also these abstract leftists, who rather be a local marginal communist gang, than to go out there and do something.

i find this reasoning rather abstract tbh, a local communist/anarchist group will still be a local group no matter what they do and dont do. and that fetish of "doing something" is also pretty tiresome.

Dialectical Wizard

6th February 2014, 09:39

cause working class power can be obtained through bourgois elections?

i find this reasoning rather abstract tbh, a local communist/anarchist group will still be a local group no matter what they do and dont do. and that fetish of "doing something" is also pretty tiresome.

If a working class party comes to power through elections, it is no longer a bourgeois democracy. But again it’s a very complex matter and it depends among the circumstances.
If working within parliamentary institutions means gaining support from the proletariat then yes we should do so, but within countries where there is no such possibility other strategies may apply better. I have nothing against these workers' councils or direct democracy. I guess i have a more pragmatic approach to things.

reb

6th February 2014, 11:30

If the party represents the interests of the proletariat, then why not?

Because the only thing that represents the interests of the proletariat is the proletariat itself. You must be one of these silly social demorats that are making a slow rise out of a deep grave.

Are you one of those infantile leftists? Who’s afraid of power? It’s not only the Stalinists who are a problem within the radical left but also these abstract leftists, who rather be a local marginal communist gang, than to go out there and do something.You and the Stalinists are pretty much the same because you're question of power is to take power out of the hands of the proletariat. I'm also not sure how you can call me an "abstract leftist" when you are the one that is calling for an abstraction in the form of representational, and some would say substitutional, party for the proletariat.

If a working class party comes to power through elections, it is no longer a bourgeois democracy. But again it’s a very complex matter and it depends among the circumstances.

No it would not. It would be a social democratic party that has partaken in a bourgeois democracy. It isn't a complex matter and it's not only a matter for the future because we have had "working class parties", which I assume you mean represent the interests of the proletariat, in power of several countries, and each time they have sold out the working class.

If working within parliamentary institutions means gaining support from the proletariat then yes we should do so, but within countries where there no such possibility other strategies may apply better. I have nothing against these workers' councils or direct democracy. I guess i have a more pragmatic approach to things. Again, you repeat the main thrust of your argument, that you want a representational party of the proletariat, one detatched from it itself, coming from outside of the class. Your politics are inherently anti-communist and anti-marxist. Revolution and social change is not going to eminate from a political party that is trying to win seats in some bourgeois government, no matter how many vote for them. You might not have anything against workers' councils or direct democracy, but what are you going to do when the proletariat starts organizing against a "workerrs' party" in power? How do you solve that contradiction? Is it still a "workers' party" when the party cracks down on the proletariat?

Dialectical Wizard

6th February 2014, 12:02

Because the only thing that represents the interests of the proletariat is the proletariat itself. You must be one of these silly social demorats that are making a slow rise out of a deep grave.

You and the Stalinists are pretty much the same because you're question of power is to take power out of the hands of the proletariat. I'm also not sure how you can call me an "abstract leftist" when you are the one that is calling for an abstraction in the form of representational, and some would say substitutional, party for the proletariat.

No it would not. It would be a social democratic party that has partaken in a bourgeois democracy. It isn't a complex matter and it's not only a matter for the future because we have had "working class parties", which I assume you mean represent the interests of the proletariat, in power of several countries, and each time they have sold out the working class.

Again, you repeat the main thrust of your argument, that you want a representational party of the proletariat, one detatched from it itself, coming from outside of the class. Your politics are inherently anti-communist and anti-marxist. Revolution and social change is not going to eminate from a political party that is trying to win seats in some bourgeois government, no matter how many vote for them. You might not have anything against workers' councils or direct democracy, but what are you going to do when the proletariat starts organizing against a "workerrs' party" in power? How do you solve that contradiction? Is it still a "workers' party" when the party cracks down on the proletariat?

Are you working class reb? Well I am, although unemployed at the moment, barley educated I never had English at school. Almost everything I know is self-taught, don’t you come here and tell me something about me being anti-Marxist or anti-communist, you know very well that Marx in the late 19th century supported the proletariat participating in bourgeois elections in Great Britain. Like I said it depends on the circumstances, sometimes participating in elections can be treacherous. Too bad you failed to see the depth of my post, instead you like to go on some dogmatic rambling. Well a lot of my fellow proletarians are reactionaries, so good luck with your ‘left communist utopia’.